Tell Me :
Talk
and that is a fact!
Which shows do you mean? I know actually a lot of them (Hamburg, Essen, Birmingham, London 9 Sep, Munich, Copenhagen) and I hear no "noodling". There certainly never was a greater tour (according to the bootlegs, I was not there). But as I've said before, I also enjoyed the early Wood era a lot, a tour like 1973 would not have beeen appropriate in, say 1978 or 1981/82.
Maybe I noodled a bit myself in this thread, since I haven't listened much to my '73 boots lately, except for Brussels. I have heard most of them at some point, though. I seem to recall that on some German shows (probably Frankfurt, maybe Essen?) Taylor was overplaying a little. But usually the whole band, not just Taylor, plays great or less than great. (There is one Europe '73 show where Jagger's singing is pretty annoying -- I think it was, again, Essen or Frankfurt -- where he ends every line abruptly and slurring).
On a more general note, I think the Stones played better as a whole on the '72 tour. In Europe '73, they started to get a little campy (and I prefer Nicky over Billy). But now I'm nitpickin' -- I love the variety between tours.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-30 17:01 by LieB.
Right on. Granted, Taylor participated in some of the greatest albums, but the reason they sound great is not because he restrained himself in the studio. Keith has said that producer Jimmer Miller went through "reams of frustration" over Tayolr and kept telling the band, "would you tell the guy not to play during that part?" Keith just said to let him play whatever he wants because they could lower him or wipe it in the final mix. Keith has also said that despite being in awe of Taylor, he used to get pissed that MT played too loud onstage and Keith was forever signalling the sound guys to turn him down, or trying to get Taylor's attention directly. Keith and Wood have both said that Keith was VERY pissed when MT showed up and played through an '81 gig. Wood said in his book that Keith was so pissed at trying to get Taylor's volume down, it's a wonder there wasn't a fistfight. Of course it would be no surprise if some jealousy lead to Ron overblowing this in his book, but Keith has made similar comments. At that point, Keith and Ron had their touring groove together and I don't think Keith appreciated Taylor getting in the middle - or stepping in front of it - no matter how skilled the guy is.
Only in some people's fertile imaginations...
stonesdan60, i feel the emphasis in what you are saying is slightly wrong. 'Change', or the Stones need to 'grow', i feel is a better criteria in which to analyse the Stones work. The bootleg Brussels show is brilliant, and the european tour of 73, sounds little like what the Stones have done before or since, in terms of the more excessive nature of the band's performance. Taylor may have been deemed excessive on that late 73 tour, by some, but so were Jagger's vocals too, in places. Somehow, however, the term excessive, or the argument concerning Taylor's overplaying seems somehow pretty redundant to me. What ultimately is so stupid about the Brussels argument is the fact that it represents one pretty much stand alone aspect to the Stones live sound, over a near fifty year period, when the Stones were still willing to be a little more artistic/creative, and had a strong drive to keep on trying new things out. When you are willing to lay your art, or, perhaps, muse, on the line, as the Stones were doing in this period, you are always likely not to go down well with everyone, and especially those with very strong pre-conceived expectations of what they may expect from a Stones show. No-one is asking anyone they have to love the Stones 73 european tour unreservedly, yet here were a band who were in essence, still pushing the boundaries, or at the very least stretching the context within which they were operating. Brussels 73 finds the Stones quite challenging in a fresh, and most importantly, a contemporary way, within what was happening pretty much exclusively in this period musically. My thoughts are that the Stones stopped being that after the 1981-82 tours, or even perhaps after 78, when they decided to play things much safer, especially from 89 onwards. Unfortunately, in the later years, the LIVE LICKS, SHINE A LIGHT film era, etc. the Stones have completely lost their edge and are pretty much operating fundamentally as a nostalgia act. That goes for every aspect, and not just the impact of one guitar player, over another.
stonesdan60, i would advise you to watch/listen intently to the TEXAS 78 DVD, and then compare that with LIVE LICKS, and SHINE A LIGHT, and then see how your conclusion stands with regard to the present day Stones. I don't think the argument is strictly about comparing/contrasting the Taylor era with the Wood era, it's is more a question of what the Stones have become after the 1989 reunion tour. Even with Woody in the early days the Stones were still raw and exciting, and most important, still willing to to find new ways of interpreting their sound.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-31 08:57 by Edward Twining.
You make many points I totally agree with and perhaps I either didn't make my initial points well enough, or I've been somewhat misunderstood. For one thing, there's that issue of during what era you fell in love with the Stones. It's that era that one is likely to defend the most. For me, I got hooked at the tender age of ten when a local TV station first aired "Gimme Shelter." Their look, their vibe - the whole thing floored me. Then I heard Ya Ya's for the first time and I was fanatical for life. Ten years old....I'm 52 now. Ya Ya's is my favorite live album even though I was later upset to learn they had done overdubs in the studio. Now that's the Taylor years, but his role is more subtle than the way he would play on later tours. Of course I was too young to realize this until I heard bootlegs after the fact. And for the record, the more I listen to Brussells the more I love it, though I still maintain that Taylor overdoes it at times. By the time I was old enough to actually go to a show, it was 1978 and I was thrilled to have Ron Wood in the band as I also loved The Faces, even though I had to admit that Taylor was a much better soloist. I'm fully aware that in different ways Brussells or Some Girls Live in Texas represent a raw, powerful band playing with spontaneity that would one day be replaced by strict professionallism. I remember one writer around 1981 describing a Stones stadium show like seeing the world's best garage band in the world's biggest garage. That was my favorite period and I'll admit I was somewhat let down in '89 to see them go "pro." However, at least from the several shows I've seen since then I don't think they've completely lost their edge. I've seen them play their stuff very professional and with strict arrangements, yet there was still a fire burning within those strictures. I saw two shows on the Bigger bang Tour and the first one was one of the most energetic and exciting Stones shows I've ever seen. As for albums like Live Licks and Shine A Light - no, they're not Brussells or Ya Ya's but I find them very enjoyable representations of the Stones nevertheless. So maybe they're not as hot and raw as they were years ago, but I like Stones music, and I like the way it sounds live so I still like the later live albums. Maybe let me put it this way. There's not another band out there that satiates my particular musical addictions the way the Stones do, so regardless of how the Stones have changed from Brussells to Live Licks, I'll still take what they do these days over what anyone else out there is putting out. And I still wonder - If documents like Ya Ya's, Brussells, or SGLIT78 never existed, what would people think of albums like Flashpoint through Shine A Light? I'd dare say they'd be considered pretty damn good live albums. It's all relative. My favorite kind of music in the world is live Stones, and although we'll never see the rawness of the seventies or '81 again, for my money to this day, nobody does live Stones music better than the Stones - even if they have "gone pro." Lacking a time machine, I'm glad the Stones have managed after all these decades to still satisfy my musical addiction.
It's not "bitchin" - it is critical discussion of the content of a great concert. It is a bless that we have now offered a great opportunity to really talk about the performance and of its qualities. It deserves that.
- Doxa
My impression as well. That song really stood out of the lot. I can't even remember when I was last time really excited about the song, but that version really opened my eyes to re-see the quality of it. A least Jagger's best vocal performance of the song in live surroundings I remember hearing (even ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS comes close but that's not a 'real' concert).
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-31 17:55 by Doxa.
egggzzactly!!
LOL.
i highly doubt anyone here has any opinions on the matter...but it's certainly worth a shot...
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 27, 2011 22:16
Quote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
His MajestyQuote
71TeleQuote
stillife
Stones had some other great periods. The 78 and 81 tour had the weaving. Keith and Ron Wood were great on those tours and were the perfect team for that period. Ron Wood was the right guy for Some Girls and not Mick Taylor.
But really, Mick Taylor gave something from another league. I just dont get tired to listen to Brussels Affair because of the pure joy that Taylor guitar gives me. He didnt overplayed, he just gave an extraordinary sound to songs that were already great.
Exactly right.
In your opinion.
No, not in my opinion, scientifically empirically proven...of course it's my opinion! I don't get this necessity of reminding people who state their opinions that it is their opinion.
i prefer to state my own facts rather than my opinions. at times, when facts aren't readily available, i will state other people's opinions.
and that is a fact!
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: December 27, 2011 23:18
In fact it's a gas
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
straycatblues73
()
Date: December 29, 2011 16:27
listen to heartbreaker , mick taylor plays only SIXTEEN , count them , SIXTEEN notes ( harmonics ) during the verses , hardly overplaying .
keith then does the same during the solo. its a wonderful glorious version of the song with soft and loud playing of all musicians.
do i think that he sometimes overplays ? mmm no , but thats because i enjoy his playing , i can imagine the point of those who do because they prefer less "lead" playing ,but the "new" brussels isn't anywhere near .
keith then does the same during the solo. its a wonderful glorious version of the song with soft and loud playing of all musicians.
do i think that he sometimes overplays ? mmm no , but thats because i enjoy his playing , i can imagine the point of those who do because they prefer less "lead" playing ,but the "new" brussels isn't anywhere near .
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: December 29, 2011 16:56
Agreed about the supposed overplaying. Taylor does noodle a bit more than in, say, 1970, but it's usually reasonable. Even when he does play a little solo on top of Jagger's vocals it usually spices things up a bit.
His so called overplaying is also less evident on the official Brussels because he's mixed lower during verses and higher on his own solos. Plus it's a great performance where everybody in the band plays pretty tight. If you listen to a bootleg mix of a less than stellar show, the noodling and "overplaying" is more palpable.
His so called overplaying is also less evident on the official Brussels because he's mixed lower during verses and higher on his own solos. Plus it's a great performance where everybody in the band plays pretty tight. If you listen to a bootleg mix of a less than stellar show, the noodling and "overplaying" is more palpable.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: December 30, 2011 13:16
I'll repeat for about the 78th time this thread that the band are truly on fire in Brussels - and so the performance is big enough to include Mick Taylor's guitar and not be unbalanced by it. That's the way it ought to work, and when it does, as it does here - wow. But MT is like a powerful spice in the recipe - just enough is perfect, but too much, and the dish tastes of nothing else. The Stones recipe needs guitars, but not a starring role for a lead guitarist, even in the Age of The Lead Guitar. It's a role that Taylor could have filled, and with a different band, he would have. Like every other Stones era, the band took on board the current fashion - indeed sometimes set the fashions that other bands carried to excess - but always finished up sounding like - themselves.
Mick Taylor was a great instrumentalist in a band that had grown up without one. They had to adapt - and excellent music came out of it, but the longer the Stones went on with him, the greater the danger that they might evolve into an overblown guitar-god dinosaur of a band. They never did, but it's an interesting question (maybe for a separate thread) whether a Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor would have created Some Girls, or met the punk challenge as successfully as the Wood-era band.
Anyway, us relics of the Brian era know all about having to retune our Stones ears every so often. As someone said above: "enjoy it all - I do". I do, too.
Mick Taylor was a great instrumentalist in a band that had grown up without one. They had to adapt - and excellent music came out of it, but the longer the Stones went on with him, the greater the danger that they might evolve into an overblown guitar-god dinosaur of a band. They never did, but it's an interesting question (maybe for a separate thread) whether a Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor would have created Some Girls, or met the punk challenge as successfully as the Wood-era band.
Anyway, us relics of the Brian era know all about having to retune our Stones ears every so often. As someone said above: "enjoy it all - I do". I do, too.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: December 30, 2011 14:52
No.
Taylor's subsequent work showed that there would have been no way a guitar-god based band would have appeared on the horizon. His work with Jack Bruce showed a jazzier range. I refer you to Spirit, Disc 2 and Live In Manchester, 1975. I was disappointed with Real Live, as, bar Tangled Up In Blue's rewrite, it is a lamentable album in which Dylan steamrollers Infidels and older material into tired blues riffs, aided and abetted by Taylor.
Would the Stones have created Some Girls with Taylor ? Well, Miss You could have been done with Taylor, ditto Faraway Eyes, Beast of Burden. I think Respectable, Lies, When The Whip Comes Down, are enhanced by Woody, but couldn't have been done by Taylor.
We could also surmise that Taylor was beginning to have drug problems, and maybe two functioning drug addicts would have caused insurmountable problems for Mick Jagger. Certainly, Taylor didn't last too long in Jack Bruce's band, as Jack was at the height of his addictions too, having started to use heroin post Harmony Row. So, from running scared in 1974, with the rumblings of addiction, to another band with an addict, it is no wonder that he, Taylor, disappeared somewhat, losing his potential, releasing only a spotty solo album circa 1979.
Taylor's subsequent work showed that there would have been no way a guitar-god based band would have appeared on the horizon. His work with Jack Bruce showed a jazzier range. I refer you to Spirit, Disc 2 and Live In Manchester, 1975. I was disappointed with Real Live, as, bar Tangled Up In Blue's rewrite, it is a lamentable album in which Dylan steamrollers Infidels and older material into tired blues riffs, aided and abetted by Taylor.
Would the Stones have created Some Girls with Taylor ? Well, Miss You could have been done with Taylor, ditto Faraway Eyes, Beast of Burden. I think Respectable, Lies, When The Whip Comes Down, are enhanced by Woody, but couldn't have been done by Taylor.
We could also surmise that Taylor was beginning to have drug problems, and maybe two functioning drug addicts would have caused insurmountable problems for Mick Jagger. Certainly, Taylor didn't last too long in Jack Bruce's band, as Jack was at the height of his addictions too, having started to use heroin post Harmony Row. So, from running scared in 1974, with the rumblings of addiction, to another band with an addict, it is no wonder that he, Taylor, disappeared somewhat, losing his potential, releasing only a spotty solo album circa 1979.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
saltoftheearth
()
Date: December 30, 2011 15:29
Quote
LieB
His so called overplaying is also less evident on the official Brussels because he's mixed lower during verses and higher on his own solos. Plus it's a great performance where everybody in the band plays pretty tight. If you listen to a bootleg mix of a less than stellar show, the noodling and "overplaying" is more palpable.
Which shows do you mean? I know actually a lot of them (Hamburg, Essen, Birmingham, London 9 Sep, Munich, Copenhagen) and I hear no "noodling". There certainly never was a greater tour (according to the bootlegs, I was not there). But as I've said before, I also enjoyed the early Wood era a lot, a tour like 1973 would not have beeen appropriate in, say 1978 or 1981/82.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
LieB
()
Date: December 30, 2011 17:00
Quote
saltoftheearthQuote
LieB
His so called overplaying is also less evident on the official Brussels because he's mixed lower during verses and higher on his own solos. Plus it's a great performance where everybody in the band plays pretty tight. If you listen to a bootleg mix of a less than stellar show, the noodling and "overplaying" is more palpable.
Which shows do you mean? I know actually a lot of them (Hamburg, Essen, Birmingham, London 9 Sep, Munich, Copenhagen) and I hear no "noodling". There certainly never was a greater tour (according to the bootlegs, I was not there). But as I've said before, I also enjoyed the early Wood era a lot, a tour like 1973 would not have beeen appropriate in, say 1978 or 1981/82.
Maybe I noodled a bit myself in this thread, since I haven't listened much to my '73 boots lately, except for Brussels. I have heard most of them at some point, though. I seem to recall that on some German shows (probably Frankfurt, maybe Essen?) Taylor was overplaying a little. But usually the whole band, not just Taylor, plays great or less than great. (There is one Europe '73 show where Jagger's singing is pretty annoying -- I think it was, again, Essen or Frankfurt -- where he ends every line abruptly and slurring).
On a more general note, I think the Stones played better as a whole on the '72 tour. In Europe '73, they started to get a little campy (and I prefer Nicky over Billy). But now I'm nitpickin' -- I love the variety between tours.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-30 17:01 by LieB.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
microvibe
()
Date: December 30, 2011 17:06
where is all this overplaying on brussels? i don't get it.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
OpenG
()
Date: December 30, 2011 17:37
Yeah and Keith is not overplaying on his VAMP OUTRO on Tumbling Dice - how many times does he need to play the Riff - Actually MT comes in also and plays his wonderful outro melody and counteracts Keith's riff and enriches the whole outro
vamp.
play the guitar boy.
vamp.
play the guitar boy.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
CousinC
()
Date: December 30, 2011 18:20
While I think Taylor put his mark best on the studio stuff he is often capable to really enrich live songs with his playin. Wood was never able to do it in that way. Neither live nor in studio. But on the other side he brought another feel and dynamic to the band. And ,- he came at the right time.
Studio-wise nothing can touch the Taylor years.
Live, - both had their moments.
Although I can still remember how shocked I was when I heard the first boot from the 75 Wood/tour after the years of Taylor playing . .
Studio-wise nothing can touch the Taylor years.
Live, - both had their moments.
Although I can still remember how shocked I was when I heard the first boot from the 75 Wood/tour after the years of Taylor playing . .
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: December 30, 2011 18:42
Quote
Green Lady
I'll repeat for about the 78th time this thread that the band are truly on fire in Brussels - and so the performance is big enough to include Mick Taylor's guitar and not be unbalanced by it. That's the way it ought to work, and when it does, as it does here - wow. But MT is like a powerful spice in the recipe - just enough is perfect, but too much, and the dish tastes of nothing else. The Stones recipe needs guitars, but not a starring role for a lead guitarist, even in the Age of The Lead Guitar. It's a role that Taylor could have filled, and with a different band, he would have. Like every other Stones era, the band took on board the current fashion - indeed sometimes set the fashions that other bands carried to excess - but always finished up sounding like - themselves.
Mick Taylor was a great instrumentalist in a band that had grown up without one. They had to adapt - and excellent music came out of it, but the longer the Stones went on with him, the greater the danger that they might evolve into an overblown guitar-god dinosaur of a band. They never did, but it's an interesting question (maybe for a separate thread) whether a Rolling Stones with Mick Taylor would have created Some Girls, or met the punk challenge as successfully as the Wood-era band.
Anyway, us relics of the Brian era know all about having to retune our Stones ears every so often. As someone said above: "enjoy it all - I do". I do, too.
Right on. Granted, Taylor participated in some of the greatest albums, but the reason they sound great is not because he restrained himself in the studio. Keith has said that producer Jimmer Miller went through "reams of frustration" over Tayolr and kept telling the band, "would you tell the guy not to play during that part?" Keith just said to let him play whatever he wants because they could lower him or wipe it in the final mix. Keith has also said that despite being in awe of Taylor, he used to get pissed that MT played too loud onstage and Keith was forever signalling the sound guys to turn him down, or trying to get Taylor's attention directly. Keith and Wood have both said that Keith was VERY pissed when MT showed up and played through an '81 gig. Wood said in his book that Keith was so pissed at trying to get Taylor's volume down, it's a wonder there wasn't a fistfight. Of course it would be no surprise if some jealousy lead to Ron overblowing this in his book, but Keith has made similar comments. At that point, Keith and Ron had their touring groove together and I don't think Keith appreciated Taylor getting in the middle - or stepping in front of it - no matter how skilled the guy is.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 30, 2011 18:49
Quote
microvibe
where is all this overplaying on brussels? i don't get it.
Only in some people's fertile imaginations...
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: December 30, 2011 19:06
Quote
CousinC
Studio-wise nothing can touch the Taylor years.
Quote
71Tele
Only in some people's fertile imaginations...
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 31, 2011 08:54
Quote
stonesdan60
OK - I finally downloaded The Brussells Affair and have been listening to it a lot. It's not radically new to me as I've owned a bootleg since the mid seventies. As a guitar player myself, I used to judge music by the talent of the lead guitar player. I loved The Stones and thought Mick Taylor was a god. Later on I grew to realize there's more to music than the guitar solo. What I really love is a great song, great performance and the overall ESSENCE of the music. Having said that, I have some thoughts that will probably get me burned at the stake by many here. That's OK. Cyber-fire doesn't hurt as much as real fire. I much prefer the Stones with Ron Wood. Listening to Brussels, my current impression is that Mick Taylor, as technically great as he was stepped all over the ESSENCE of the Stones sound and vibe. As one writer - who's name I forget - wrote in a review once: "The sound of the Stones is the sound of CHORDS." Yes, those crashing crunching, gritty Keith chords in front of the rest of the band supporting Jagger's live interpretations of their great songs. Don't get me wrong. Brussells is a smoking hot performance and Mick Taylor is awesome if lead guitar is what you like most in a band. He's certainly way better technically than Wood. What I don't like is that Taylor treats the bulk of every song as if it's all a guitar solo. His riffs - brilliant as they are- seem like they're stealing the show from the vocals and Keith's playing, which should be the more prominent backing to Mick's vocals. With Ron Wood, it stopped being about the guitar solos, and I'm glad. It once again became about the SONGS, and the ESSENCE of the sound- that gritty chordal interplay between the guitars. That's the sound I prefer. So prepare to burn me at the stake here: I just listened to Brussells again. Right now I'm listening to Live Licks. I'm enjoying Live Licks much more. If I'm in the mood for great lead guitar I'll listen to Eric Clapton or Jeff beck. If I'm in the mood for great live Stones, I'll put on something from the Ron Wood era. Personally, I think Live Licks and the Shine A Light soundtrack is some of the best live Stones out there. (Although I haven't had a chance to see or hear Some Girls Live In Texas yet). Note: My all time favorite live Stones is Ya Yas, but at that point, Taylor had not yet started to over-ride everything with non-stop lead playing. So get a stake and some kindling wood for the burning. Tie Me Up. Flip The Switch.
stonesdan60, i feel the emphasis in what you are saying is slightly wrong. 'Change', or the Stones need to 'grow', i feel is a better criteria in which to analyse the Stones work. The bootleg Brussels show is brilliant, and the european tour of 73, sounds little like what the Stones have done before or since, in terms of the more excessive nature of the band's performance. Taylor may have been deemed excessive on that late 73 tour, by some, but so were Jagger's vocals too, in places. Somehow, however, the term excessive, or the argument concerning Taylor's overplaying seems somehow pretty redundant to me. What ultimately is so stupid about the Brussels argument is the fact that it represents one pretty much stand alone aspect to the Stones live sound, over a near fifty year period, when the Stones were still willing to be a little more artistic/creative, and had a strong drive to keep on trying new things out. When you are willing to lay your art, or, perhaps, muse, on the line, as the Stones were doing in this period, you are always likely not to go down well with everyone, and especially those with very strong pre-conceived expectations of what they may expect from a Stones show. No-one is asking anyone they have to love the Stones 73 european tour unreservedly, yet here were a band who were in essence, still pushing the boundaries, or at the very least stretching the context within which they were operating. Brussels 73 finds the Stones quite challenging in a fresh, and most importantly, a contemporary way, within what was happening pretty much exclusively in this period musically. My thoughts are that the Stones stopped being that after the 1981-82 tours, or even perhaps after 78, when they decided to play things much safer, especially from 89 onwards. Unfortunately, in the later years, the LIVE LICKS, SHINE A LIGHT film era, etc. the Stones have completely lost their edge and are pretty much operating fundamentally as a nostalgia act. That goes for every aspect, and not just the impact of one guitar player, over another.
stonesdan60, i would advise you to watch/listen intently to the TEXAS 78 DVD, and then compare that with LIVE LICKS, and SHINE A LIGHT, and then see how your conclusion stands with regard to the present day Stones. I don't think the argument is strictly about comparing/contrasting the Taylor era with the Wood era, it's is more a question of what the Stones have become after the 1989 reunion tour. Even with Woody in the early days the Stones were still raw and exciting, and most important, still willing to to find new ways of interpreting their sound.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-31 08:57 by Edward Twining.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
lapaz62
()
Date: December 31, 2011 09:14
I am sick of this over playing rubbish, Taylor is a guitar player, he plays guitar, he plays well, better than most and Brussels is a fine performance by all that were there, end of story.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: December 31, 2011 11:04
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
stonesdan60
OK - I finally downloaded The Brussells Affair and have been listening to it a lot. It's not radically new to me as I've owned a bootleg since the mid seventies. As a guitar player myself, I used to judge music by the talent of the lead guitar player. I loved The Stones and thought Mick Taylor was a god. Later on I grew to realize there's more to music than the guitar solo. What I really love is a great song, great performance and the overall ESSENCE of the music. Having said that, I have some thoughts that will probably get me burned at the stake by many here. That's OK. Cyber-fire doesn't hurt as much as real fire. I much prefer the Stones with Ron Wood. Listening to Brussels, my current impression is that Mick Taylor, as technically great as he was stepped all over the ESSENCE of the Stones sound and vibe. As one writer - who's name I forget - wrote in a review once: "The sound of the Stones is the sound of CHORDS." Yes, those crashing crunching, gritty Keith chords in front of the rest of the band supporting Jagger's live interpretations of their great songs. Don't get me wrong. Brussells is a smoking hot performance and Mick Taylor is awesome if lead guitar is what you like most in a band. He's certainly way better technically than Wood. What I don't like is that Taylor treats the bulk of every song as if it's all a guitar solo. His riffs - brilliant as they are- seem like they're stealing the show from the vocals and Keith's playing, which should be the more prominent backing to Mick's vocals. With Ron Wood, it stopped being about the guitar solos, and I'm glad. It once again became about the SONGS, and the ESSENCE of the sound- that gritty chordal interplay between the guitars. That's the sound I prefer. So prepare to burn me at the stake here: I just listened to Brussells again. Right now I'm listening to Live Licks. I'm enjoying Live Licks much more. If I'm in the mood for great lead guitar I'll listen to Eric Clapton or Jeff beck. If I'm in the mood for great live Stones, I'll put on something from the Ron Wood era. Personally, I think Live Licks and the Shine A Light soundtrack is some of the best live Stones out there. (Although I haven't had a chance to see or hear Some Girls Live In Texas yet). Note: My all time favorite live Stones is Ya Yas, but at that point, Taylor had not yet started to over-ride everything with non-stop lead playing. So get a stake and some kindling wood for the burning. Tie Me Up. Flip The Switch.
stonesdan60, i feel the emphasis in what you are saying is slightly wrong. 'Change', or the Stones need to 'grow', i feel is a better criteria in which to analyse the Stones work. The bootleg Brussels show is brilliant, and the european tour of 73, sounds little like what the Stones have done before or since, in terms of the more excessive nature of the band's performance. Taylor may have been deemed excessive on that late 73 tour, by some, but so were Jagger's vocals too, in places. Somehow, however, the term excessive, or the argument concerning Taylor's overplaying seems somehow pretty redundant to me. What ultimately is so stupid about the Brussels argument is the fact that it represents one pretty much stand alone aspect to the Stones live sound, over a near fifty year period, when the Stones were still willing to be a little more artistic/creative, and had a strong drive to keep on trying new things out. When you are willing to lay your art, or, perhaps, muse, on the line, as the Stones were doing in this period, you are always likely not to go down well with everyone, and especially those with very strong pre-conceived expectations of what they may expect from a Stones show. No-one is asking anyone they have to love the Stones 73 european tour unreservedly, yet here were a band who were in essence, still pushing the boundaries, or at the very least stretching the context within which they were operating. Brussels 73 finds the Stones quite challenging in a fresh, and most importantly, a contemporary way, within what was happening pretty much exclusively in this period musically. My thoughts are that the Stones stopped being that after the 1981-82 tours, or even perhaps after 78, when they decided to play things much safer, especially from 89 onwards. Unfortunately, in the later years, the LIVE LICKS, SHINE A LIGHT film era, etc. the Stones have completely lost their edge and are pretty much operating fundamentally as a nostalgia act. That goes for every aspect, and not just the impact of one guitar player, over another.
stonesdan60, i would advise you to watch/listen intently to the TEXAS 78 DVD, and then compare that with LIVE LICKS, and SHINE A LIGHT, and then see how your conclusion stands with regard to the present day Stones. I don't think the argument is strictly about comparing/contrasting the Taylor era with the Wood era, it's is more a question of what the Stones have become after the 1989 reunion tour. Even with Woody in the early days the Stones were still raw and exciting, and most important, still willing to to find new ways of interpreting their sound.
You make many points I totally agree with and perhaps I either didn't make my initial points well enough, or I've been somewhat misunderstood. For one thing, there's that issue of during what era you fell in love with the Stones. It's that era that one is likely to defend the most. For me, I got hooked at the tender age of ten when a local TV station first aired "Gimme Shelter." Their look, their vibe - the whole thing floored me. Then I heard Ya Ya's for the first time and I was fanatical for life. Ten years old....I'm 52 now. Ya Ya's is my favorite live album even though I was later upset to learn they had done overdubs in the studio. Now that's the Taylor years, but his role is more subtle than the way he would play on later tours. Of course I was too young to realize this until I heard bootlegs after the fact. And for the record, the more I listen to Brussells the more I love it, though I still maintain that Taylor overdoes it at times. By the time I was old enough to actually go to a show, it was 1978 and I was thrilled to have Ron Wood in the band as I also loved The Faces, even though I had to admit that Taylor was a much better soloist. I'm fully aware that in different ways Brussells or Some Girls Live in Texas represent a raw, powerful band playing with spontaneity that would one day be replaced by strict professionallism. I remember one writer around 1981 describing a Stones stadium show like seeing the world's best garage band in the world's biggest garage. That was my favorite period and I'll admit I was somewhat let down in '89 to see them go "pro." However, at least from the several shows I've seen since then I don't think they've completely lost their edge. I've seen them play their stuff very professional and with strict arrangements, yet there was still a fire burning within those strictures. I saw two shows on the Bigger bang Tour and the first one was one of the most energetic and exciting Stones shows I've ever seen. As for albums like Live Licks and Shine A Light - no, they're not Brussells or Ya Ya's but I find them very enjoyable representations of the Stones nevertheless. So maybe they're not as hot and raw as they were years ago, but I like Stones music, and I like the way it sounds live so I still like the later live albums. Maybe let me put it this way. There's not another band out there that satiates my particular musical addictions the way the Stones do, so regardless of how the Stones have changed from Brussells to Live Licks, I'll still take what they do these days over what anyone else out there is putting out. And I still wonder - If documents like Ya Ya's, Brussells, or SGLIT78 never existed, what would people think of albums like Flashpoint through Shine A Light? I'd dare say they'd be considered pretty damn good live albums. It's all relative. My favorite kind of music in the world is live Stones, and although we'll never see the rawness of the seventies or '81 again, for my money to this day, nobody does live Stones music better than the Stones - even if they have "gone pro." Lacking a time machine, I'm glad the Stones have managed after all these decades to still satisfy my musical addiction.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 31, 2011 11:39
I don't necessarily think you are wrong, stonesdan60, more the fact that i think you are a little too intent on condensing the Stones sound to what best suits your taste. That's not a crime either, of course, it is just the fact that sometimes it may result in you slightly overlooking areas of creativity within the Stones live context. My thoughts are that the reason the BRUSSELS AFFAIR bootleg is so popular has a considerable amount to do with Mick Taylor's performance (although of course also the whole band are on fire). Fans can hear the Stones often put a slightly new slant on many of their best known songs, working often from a slightly different perspective. That is also true of a lot of the Stones live performances when they were in their prime, but i would say most especially the Taylor years.
stonesdan 60, what are your thoughts on the Australian tour from the beginning of 1973? My thoughts are that i like those bootleg live shows a little better.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-31 11:42 by Edward Twining.
stonesdan 60, what are your thoughts on the Australian tour from the beginning of 1973? My thoughts are that i like those bootleg live shows a little better.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-31 11:42 by Edward Twining.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: December 31, 2011 12:30
Just to add someone else's perspective to my contention that the latter day Stones are still a force to be reckoned with, here's a review someone posted here about the very last Stones show I had the privelege to see. I'm just a little surprised he didn't mention how great Ronnie was on Sway, which was a real treat for me to hear live for the first time. Midnight Rambler was also spectacular!.................
The Rolling Stones
Giants Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ, USA
Wednesday September 27, 2006
The set list
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Live With Me
Monkey Man
Sway
Far Away Eyes
Streets Of Love
Just My Imagination
Midnight Rambler
Tumbling Dice
--- Introductions
You Got The Silver (Keith)
Little T&A (Keith)
Under My Thumb (to B-stage)
Rough Justice
Start Me Up
Honky Tonk Women (to main stage)
Sympathy For The Devil
Jumping Jack Flash
Satisfaction
Brown Sugar (encore)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Russell Rowland
Last night's show was hands down the most enjoyable, and probably the best, Stones show of the 20 I have seen over the past 34 years (including all 5 NY shows since last September).
First off I kept asking myself is this even the same band? I have never heard Keith and Ronnie so dead on and tight. Never! The sloppy and sometimes crappy guitar playing that I complained about at various times over the past few tours was GONE. Get a bootleg of the show and listen for yourself. You will hear the band in top form.
How good was it? Even Tumbling Dice, Honky Tonk Women and Satifaction (three war horses that I have started to DREAD) sounded reinvigorated and rocked. I'm not kidding. Honky Tonk and Satisfaction in particular were upped in tempo and they really took off. And Just My Imagination, which is not my favorite cover, won me over and was among my favorite songs of the night.
What a wonderful surprise the whole evening was. The setlist was inspired and featured EIGHT (count 'em eight) songs that they didn't play at any of the 5 NY shows over the past year.
And let me, a big -- BIG -- Mick Taylor fan, give the man his due and sing the praises of Ronnie Wood. I LOVE his playing with the Faces, and I've always felt like he sold his soul when he joined the Stones (life security and stadium tours in return for clowning and taking a creative back seat), but last night he was so focused and great. From his pedal steel playing on Far Away Eyes, to his beautiful finger-picking and slide on You Got The Silver, to his unleashed and on fire solos on Tumbling Dice, Rough Justice and others, he really redeemed himself in my eyes.
And finally Keith....because I've loved and been inspired by his playing so much (I coped so much from him), I've really been very hard on him when he downright sucks. And he has had some very off nights, but last night wasn't one of them. And his guitar was mixed up very loud in the mix at times and it was like a religious experience having the chords and notes just ringing and growling away.
I don't know what happned to this band over the past few months -- soul searching, interventions, serious practicing, whatever. But they should do it more often. I think the change in ethic showed most glaringly in Keith's set, where he focused on singing the songs rather than playing and and kept the music tight. It was the first Keith set in 10 years that I didn't use as a bathroom break.
And don't think I've fotgotten about Mick and Charlie, they were brilliant. But over the past 10 years, I've found them to always really carry the show, and that Keith and Ronnie were always the question marks from show to show and song to song. So that's why I focused on them in this review.
All in all a great night. Get a copy of the show and hear for yourself. I'm sure it wasn't 100% perfect (and I've stated my issues with the band enough in the past), but for the Stones it was an amazing night I wish everyone could have enjoyed.
I cannot believe some people are writing them off -- including me at times. These boys can still kick major ass. God love 'em.
The Rolling Stones
Giants Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ, USA
Wednesday September 27, 2006
The set list
It's Only Rock'n Roll
Live With Me
Monkey Man
Sway
Far Away Eyes
Streets Of Love
Just My Imagination
Midnight Rambler
Tumbling Dice
--- Introductions
You Got The Silver (Keith)
Little T&A (Keith)
Under My Thumb (to B-stage)
Rough Justice
Start Me Up
Honky Tonk Women (to main stage)
Sympathy For The Devil
Jumping Jack Flash
Satisfaction
Brown Sugar (encore)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Russell Rowland
Last night's show was hands down the most enjoyable, and probably the best, Stones show of the 20 I have seen over the past 34 years (including all 5 NY shows since last September).
First off I kept asking myself is this even the same band? I have never heard Keith and Ronnie so dead on and tight. Never! The sloppy and sometimes crappy guitar playing that I complained about at various times over the past few tours was GONE. Get a bootleg of the show and listen for yourself. You will hear the band in top form.
How good was it? Even Tumbling Dice, Honky Tonk Women and Satifaction (three war horses that I have started to DREAD) sounded reinvigorated and rocked. I'm not kidding. Honky Tonk and Satisfaction in particular were upped in tempo and they really took off. And Just My Imagination, which is not my favorite cover, won me over and was among my favorite songs of the night.
What a wonderful surprise the whole evening was. The setlist was inspired and featured EIGHT (count 'em eight) songs that they didn't play at any of the 5 NY shows over the past year.
And let me, a big -- BIG -- Mick Taylor fan, give the man his due and sing the praises of Ronnie Wood. I LOVE his playing with the Faces, and I've always felt like he sold his soul when he joined the Stones (life security and stadium tours in return for clowning and taking a creative back seat), but last night he was so focused and great. From his pedal steel playing on Far Away Eyes, to his beautiful finger-picking and slide on You Got The Silver, to his unleashed and on fire solos on Tumbling Dice, Rough Justice and others, he really redeemed himself in my eyes.
And finally Keith....because I've loved and been inspired by his playing so much (I coped so much from him), I've really been very hard on him when he downright sucks. And he has had some very off nights, but last night wasn't one of them. And his guitar was mixed up very loud in the mix at times and it was like a religious experience having the chords and notes just ringing and growling away.
I don't know what happned to this band over the past few months -- soul searching, interventions, serious practicing, whatever. But they should do it more often. I think the change in ethic showed most glaringly in Keith's set, where he focused on singing the songs rather than playing and and kept the music tight. It was the first Keith set in 10 years that I didn't use as a bathroom break.
And don't think I've fotgotten about Mick and Charlie, they were brilliant. But over the past 10 years, I've found them to always really carry the show, and that Keith and Ronnie were always the question marks from show to show and song to song. So that's why I focused on them in this review.
All in all a great night. Get a copy of the show and hear for yourself. I'm sure it wasn't 100% perfect (and I've stated my issues with the band enough in the past), but for the Stones it was an amazing night I wish everyone could have enjoyed.
I cannot believe some people are writing them off -- including me at times. These boys can still kick major ass. God love 'em.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
pike bishop
()
Date: December 31, 2011 13:57
Weird or what,an excellent live gig surfaces after 38 years,has brilliant production (check out Bill"s bass) and costs 9 dollars for a flac .The bitchin starts immediately and carries on for weeks.Some are never happy.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: December 31, 2011 16:19
Just listened to Brussels in it's entirety at top volume. I got to say it might be the best version of YCAGWYW. I wonder if Jagger knew about recording because he sings it better than ever; esp. that first verse. And Keith's BU vocals - goosebumps.
Only thing I always wish: on live versions of "Heartbreaker" that they would stretch that funk break out. I mean - they only just get it going when they are already out of it. Taylor 'announce' his lead guitar with these burps of guitar, and then takes off. But it is over too soon. Maybe that is why they are the Stones, and I post here.
Only thing I always wish: on live versions of "Heartbreaker" that they would stretch that funk break out. I mean - they only just get it going when they are already out of it. Taylor 'announce' his lead guitar with these burps of guitar, and then takes off. But it is over too soon. Maybe that is why they are the Stones, and I post here.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 31, 2011 17:49
Quote
pike bishop
Weird or what,an excellent live gig surfaces after 38 years,has brilliant production (check out Bill"s bass) and costs 9 dollars for a flac .The bitchin starts immediately and carries on for weeks.Some are never happy.
It's not "bitchin" - it is critical discussion of the content of a great concert. It is a bless that we have now offered a great opportunity to really talk about the performance and of its qualities. It deserves that.
- Doxa
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 31, 2011 17:54
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I got to say it might be the best version of YCAGWYW. I wonder if Jagger knew about recording because he sings it better than ever; esp. that first verse. And Keith's BU vocals - goosebumps.
My impression as well. That song really stood out of the lot. I can't even remember when I was last time really excited about the song, but that version really opened my eyes to re-see the quality of it. A least Jagger's best vocal performance of the song in live surroundings I remember hearing (even ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS comes close but that's not a 'real' concert).
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-31 17:55 by Doxa.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 31, 2011 18:57
I heard this on bootleg a long time ago as Bedspring Symphony, it's always been the best performance I ever heard by them and I'm speaking generally, sure, you bring up Fort Worth, MSG, other good ones but I've always thought this was the hottest they ever were.
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Errol
()
Date: December 31, 2011 23:09
LApze hit it on the nose. Taylor does not overplay he just plays the greatest lead guitar ever
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: December 31, 2011 23:31
Quote
71TeleQuote
GrandToad
I'm going to go ahead and shoot of my mouth.
Mick Taylor was just right for the Stones in '73. It was the era of the lead guitarist. Taylor was one of the most tasteful of the generation. I would say his only rival were Duane Allman or Donald Roeser (for those who don't know Donald Roeser was "Buck Dhrama" of Blue Oyster Cult). Duane had slightly more stage presence than Taylor. It's all opinion, anyway. "Jimmy Page started a rage."
The Stones were actually ahead of the curve when Woodie came on board. The transitional period of 1975 to 1978 was the coming of the end of the lead guitarist as the centerpiece of of a band. By the early Eigthies concerts were becoming more about the show than the music, thus the guitarist leaping around, etc.
Enough of me mouthing off.
Another person misses the point and thinks Taylor was about lead guitar. Taylor was about elevating the band. Just listen to Charlie's comments on the new BBC interview posted on another thread. He said Taylor brought something extra, both in the studio and live. It wasn't slagging Wood, just saying that Taylor was special. Wyman said the same thing in the Exile reissue DVD interview. No one says any of these things about Ron Wood, face it. If you think those of us who love the Taylor era are necessarily big fans of lead guitar for its own sake, think again. I don't give a crap about Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, etc. I love the Stones as a band and they were the best band they've ever been with Taylor in it. It's about how they responded to him and played off him, not just about guitar solos.
egggzzactly!!
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: January 1, 2012 18:23
Gotta say that I have NEVER been annoyed by Taylor *playing too much*, not even for the European Tour 1973 - and I'd never even have thought about the word "noodling" to describe his playing if not for reading that word here on IORR. I wish he was louder in the mix of the official Brussels Affair release....and in fact, that's the ONLY complaint I have about that release. Luckily they turned him up everytime he did a "solo". Go Mick !
Re: Brussels 1973 - Some More Thoughts
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: January 1, 2012 18:45
Quote
Errol
LApze hit it on the nose. Taylor does not overplay he just plays the greatest lead guitar ever
LOL.
I just heard Stones Brussels
Posted by:
tipps
()
Date: January 9, 2012 02:03
I just heard the new Brussels the boys have on download. Its great, so clear and the love those versions. I think the boys played better in the 70s than now. Opinions of this show and their guitar playing please.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-09 02:04 by tipps.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-09 02:04 by tipps.
Re: I just heard Stones Brussels
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: January 9, 2012 02:05
Quote
tipps
I just heard the new Brussels the boys have on download. Its great, so clear and the love those versions. I think the boys played better in the 70s than now. Opinions of this show and their guitar playing please.
i highly doubt anyone here has any opinions on the matter...but it's certainly worth a shot...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1570
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10