I brought this subject up tangentially on the thread "TWITTER ANNOUNCES NEW BOOTLEG" but I thought to start a new thread about this because it is a subject that -- though insider stuff -- might be appreciated by the hard-core regiment here. I saw the Stones in Madison Square Garden in 1975 on nights 1 and 4 of their 6 night stand in New York. This is one of the Stones' most interesting tours, as they were accompanied by Ronnie as a "guest guitarist" (having lost Mick Taylor a few months prior to the tour) and extra percussion from Ollie Brown and had Billy Preston on piano. It was an entirely different vibe and energy than the 1972 STP and 1973 Asian/European jaunts -- funkier, sloppier, and brighter. I know it is conventional wisdom to claim that the 1975 TOTA was a clear step down from the preceding tours, but I always loved this particular tour. Clearly Jagger's voice and persona had taken on a cartoonish bent...more specifically, Jagger's singing on this tour (and on the 1976 European tour) has taken heavy criticism (and rightly so, in most cases). He seemed to spit some of the lyrics out in a careless, quasi-spoken-voice, tone-flat growl...harmony, lyrics, and expressive diction took a back seat. This really marred some of the otherwise energetically delivered songs by the band in both the 1975 and 1976 tours.

I discovered -- when I went back and listened to bootleg recordings of the early shows of the 1975 TOTA -- that the difference in Jagger's singing between the early shows and the later ones (say MSG and after) is astonishing. This is something that has been puzzling me. As Erik Snow really perfectly points out in the "TWITTER ANOUNCES NEW BOOTLEG" thread, "Jagger sang quite differently for the first couple of (TOTA) shows, than he did later. At the VERY first shows, he almost sounds like he did in 1973...to make a stretch. While, later on, he went into a vocal-role that was totally different from anything he ever did previously....quite amazing. Pro's and con's for both those ways of singing." And this is really true! I listened to a bootleg recording of the first Buffalo show (June 15, 1975) and the band is smoking hot and Jagger sings with a ferocity (and tunefulness) that matches some of the best shows from the mythic 1973 European tour. Jagger is in amazing vocal form.

Then...New York (a mere week after Buffalo)...L.A....Detroit...Buffalo (again) 2 months later...the suppleness and high notes in the voice are gone...and they would never return on this tour (and it could be argued, ever). The flatter, growlier Jagger-voice takes hold...the voice that would dominate the remaining 1975 and subsequent 1976 tour, as well as the official document of these tours, LOVE YOU LIVE. I have always wondered how this change could happen within one week...and how come that pre-New York TOTA voice never (ever) came back. This is puzzling...it is as if the divide between the peak Jagger-voice and the post-peak Jagger-voice is exactly at THIS point...this is the point of demarcation. What is doubly baffling is that this seems to have happened in mid-tour! The "shout and growl" vocalizing is not -- as many think -- the only voice Jagger used for his mid-70's work. For the first shows of the TOTA his singing is actually the equal to the 1973 tour...then...after Buffalo and Toronto...in New York, actually...something happens and it is gone...in it's place...well, you know...

One last thought...I think in retrospect most of us hold LOVE YOU LIVE to be a somewhat disappointing live album -- regardless of how much we loved it initially. It has some wonderful moments (especially the El Mocambo side) and it has its deserved place in the Stones canon, but no one really seriously considers it definitive or "classic" in the sense that Ya Ya's is considered a masterpiece. I personally think that the Stones f*cked up on this one...they could have released the El Mocambo concert (far more vital in the sense that it was recorded in 1977 and was a perfect representation of the band that year) as a double-live album and it would probably have become a legendary live album. But here's another hypothesis: had they released the first 1975 Buffalo concert as LOVE YOU LIVE instead of (mostly) the Paris 1976 show the album would have a reputation the equal of Ya Ya's. The band is that hot and that ferocious -- and Jagger that terrific -- in the early part of 1975's TOTA. The difference between Buffalo 1975 (first show) and Paris 1976 is, literally, stunning.

Too much . . coke?

1972 has a legendary status due to the CSblues movie but it seems that the real debauchery happened in 1975.

So yeah excesses of all sorts might have "put a strain" on Jagger's organ(s) ><

Re Jagger's voice, yes, there is a slight evolution in his singing (or involution, if you like) during the TOTA, but nothing dramatic. I don't even hear all this difference between 73 and 76 Jagger. I hear a huge difference between 69 and 73. But 73 - 76? Considering that the set list was longer and Jagger moved more, on the final run of super hits he might have been a little out of it.

Re: Love you Live. I find it a great album, even more if you see it as a 4 side LP. Overdubbed patchwork? That was how things were done at the time. The Mocambo side as it is, is pure fiction. Modern Stones playing 60 hits. It has a purpose in the context of LYL.

I believe that at the time there was no point in releasing the whole Mocambo concert. It wasn't representative of the 75/76 tour (actually, it shows more similarities to the Some Girls version of the band). It wasn't a special occasion either. And in any case it would have been overdubbed to death (lets face it - great energy, great set list - but not an impeccable performance - very far away from Ya Ya or Brusselles).

Mocambo makes sense only today. Because side 3 of LYL worked as great teaser for 40 years. This is the only reason why the concert has acheived mythological status with the fans.

Plus only today, with the acquired taste for untouched recordings (and the exeperience of the Vegas years tours) we can truly enjoy a show with such a high bum note ratio!

C

Great points TOTR. Love the way you've identified the 'demarcation point' especially.

I'm in agreement as well, if they had released an earlier concert instead of the Paris shows, or just El Mocambo, we'd have an entirely different impression of the Stones through that period.

In some respects I'd say if there was a 'weak link' on LYL, it was MJ, which is astonishing given his relative consistency otherwise.

Similarly on the 1981 tour, I'd say that MJ deep growl was the lag, although it did work on some numbers.

Black & Blue was released in April of 1976, right smack in between the American Tour and the European Tour.

Once "Hey Negrita" hit the airwaves and the setlist, that voice he uses in the song (deep growl and guttural noises) became the go to voice from then on. It was awful...

But before the LP release the song was still just one of the many recordings from Germany to be narrowed into an LP. So the 1975 performances are quite nice compared to the 1976 ones. I don't think his voice was all that bad in 1975.

Quote
Munichhilton
Black & Blue was released in April of 1976, right smack in between the American Tour and the European Tour.

Once "Hey Negrita" hit the airwaves and the setlist, that voice he uses in the song (deep growl and guttural noises) became the go to voice from then on. It was awful...

But before the LP release the song was still just one of the many recordings from Germany to be narrowed into an LP. So the 1975 performances are quite nice compared to the 1976 ones. I don't think his voice was all that bad in 1975.

And yet, Hey Negrita is great...just don't need 'that voice' for every song.

Good post. I think it's a matter of perception also. When I discovered The Stones, around 1980, I wasn't critical about anything. I thought Jagger's singing style was cooler than cool. But then again he wasn't that nasal then so he got away with almost anything. And, when punk hit the fan, you were supposed to sing like that. It was in the 00s that Jagger's voice was starting to really annoy me. Listen to SAL for instance...

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton
Black & Blue was released in April of 1976, right smack in between the American Tour and the European Tour.

Once "Hey Negrita" hit the airwaves and the setlist, that voice he uses in the song (deep growl and guttural noises) became the go to voice from then on. It was awful...

But before the LP release the song was still just one of the many recordings from Germany to be narrowed into an LP. So the 1975 performances are quite nice compared to the 1976 ones. I don't think his voice was all that bad in 1975.

And yet, Hey Negrita is great...just don't need 'that voice' for every song.

Agreed.

Interesting thread - yes indeed, a change took place sometime around MSG 1975 when it comes to Jagger's thoughts on how to deliver the stuff for the audience. A lot of cocaine might had something to do with it, but I don't think it's only that, because it's not like he's trying to accomplish something later on the tour, which he's unable to, due to his voice. The "reggae way of style of singing" for singing, is not something one does because one is limited by ones voice, and that style is something that wasn't that prominent untill later in the tour. So I think Jagger did this on purpose as he thought it was exciting, and gave the shows a new rough & bizarre mood. I guess he was tired of doing the same thing as they had done in the Taylor years; as if they had nothing left to do in the rest of their career than trying to recreate the golden days; without even accomplishing it, and getting worse year by year

Maybe that after the nerves and the thrill over the first couple of shows of 1975 had vanished, Jagger viewed things different, and just decided to let it all hang out, and do something new.

Buffalo in June is a good example of an excellent Jagger performance, but if you listen to the even earlier ones, like Kansas City or Milwaukee; Jagger is sounding really a lot more like 1973-Jagger, even compared to Buffalo, 1 week later. Example of "later TOTA show" with Jagger peaking in his new vocal-style; meant in a good way; is the last Chicago show on July 24th. Top notch concert; yet so incredible different from all styles the band and Jagger had ever delivered in the 12 previous years. But one actually doesn't have to take a late July show to hear his new style. For instance; the famous last MSG show also features a vocal-delivery which is very different from the early stages of the tour. Also a lot of "reggae singing" there. As his voice was really shot that day and as he seem to be real high as well...it's quite a wierd one. He's even more hoarse than on the famous Lyon 1976 rec.

Even though Jaggers singing changed during the tour - the last part of TOTA was still brilliant, IMO, including Jaggers part of the deal. But in 1976, Jagger seemed to just try to approach the songs with how he did it in 1975, without remembering that it was based on great energy and fun in 1975; and not just "a choice of flat notes". A poor effort....not much guts behind it

This is all quite funny because back in the early 70s, it was the band's tightness that decided the mood or brilliance of the show; and Jagger never tried to "do something else" but being a part of the band's sound. But in mid tour of 1973, when Keith sometimes was really out of it; Jagger started not caring so much about the standard way of doing things, and approached some songs with a decadent and un-serious way - especially on Midnight Rambler; mid tour 1973, where he's not even trying to give the song it's "serious" mood; but makes it all more like a parody of the MR we're used to. That's the only hint of what was to come....before he took off to a entire different level in 1975. And this time, it wasn't a parody or a "tired Jagger", but just something really really else. One of the absolute best tours they ever did, me thinks, btw.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-27 21:05 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
liddas
Re Jagger's voice, yes, there is a slight evolution in his singing (or involution, if you like) during the TOTA, but nothing dramatic. I don't even hear all this difference between 73 and 76 Jagger. I hear a huge difference between 69 and 73. But 73 - 76? Considering that the set list was longer and Jagger moved more, on the final run of super hits he might have been a little out of it.

Re: Love you Live. I find it a great album, even more if you see it as a 4 side LP. Overdubbed patchwork? That was how things were done at the time. The Mocambo side as it is, is pure fiction. Modern Stones playing 60 hits. It has a purpose in the context of LYL.

I believe that at the time there was no point in releasing the whole Mocambo concert. It wasn't representative of the 75/76 tour (actually, it shows more similarities to the Some Girls version of the band). It wasn't a special occasion either. And in any case it would have been overdubbed to death (lets face it - great energy, great set list - but not an impeccable performance - very far away from Ya Ya or Brusselles).

Mocambo makes sense only today. Because side 3 of LYL worked as great teaser for 40 years. This is the only reason why the concert has acheived mythological status with the fans.

Plus only today, with the acquired taste for untouched recordings (and the exeperience of the Vegas years tours) we can truly enjoy a show with such a high bum note ratio!

C

With all due respect, liddas, I could not disagree more. I own hundreds of bootlegs and can assure you that your comments regarding Jagger's voice, "there is a slight evolution in his singing (or involution, if you like) during the TOTA, but nothing dramatic. I don't even hear all this difference between 73 and 76 Jagger." could not be more wrong. There is no "slight evolution"...there is in fact a sudden and dramatic difference between Jagger's voice at the start of TOTA and the rest of the tour. Even more starkly dramatic is the difference between Jagger's voice in 1973 and 1976...there the difference is really striking. Just listen to the recently released Brussels concert and Love You Live -- it is almost as if Jagger in 1976 had devolved into a caricature of himself. The high notes and suppleness in his voice are gone. I have read your posts and you seem like an intelligent and knowledgeable Stones fan...I cannot believe that you do not notice/acknowledge the spectacular decline in Jagger's vocals between 1973 and 1976!

Regarding your thoughts on Love You Live...again I completely disagree with your comment, "I find it a great album" / "I believe that at the time there was no point in releasing the whole Mocambo concert.". I remember very clearly the Zeitgeist into which Love You Live was released...autumn 1977...punk in ascendancy and the Stones (after a few less than stellar albums) dangerously close to being regarded as passé...almost an anachronism. I remember one New York reviewer calling the album "Café Society Rock"...in fact the song selection (many old chestnuts), bloat, and sloppiness of the album seemed almost pointless to many people. I would posit to say that -- taking the Zeitgeist of late 1977 into account -- had the Stones released the El Mocambo concert in full as their live album it would have been called an instant classic and been considered an album as relevant for its time as Ya Ya's was in 1970. El Mocambo was intimate and raw and vital and snotty...its mixture of old rockers, ancient blues and new burners was exactly what the Stones should have released in 1977...it was fresher and more raunchy that Love You Live and looked backwards (to their raw beginnings as a Blues cover band) and forward (to their subsequent punky reincarnation in 1978) simultaneously. The fact that it was not an "impeccable performance" would have made it even more "of its time"...and, in contrast to your claim I think releasing El Mocambo as Love You Live would have been the perfect move and made perfect sense...

...it would have been the perfect album to close out that era in Rolling Stones history and would have cleared the deck perfectly for the "new" Stones of Some Girls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-27 20:58 by Turd On The Run.

After '73, I think the band got real shaky. Not in their performance, although it did suffer after Taylor's exit, but in trying to be relevant. 1975 was full blown 70s, with disco and glam and ambisexuality and the peak year of 1972 looked far back in the rear view mirror. The Stones were no longer setting the musical agenda in the mid-70s, and seemed mostly just trying to survive. The Toronto bust might have been a blessing in disguise. 'Some Girls' centered the group and allowed them to update their sound successfully. And they did nail down the sounds they were after, unlike the mid-70s, where it was hit and miss.

Quote
Turd On The Run
I would posit to say that -- taking the Zeitgeist of late 1977 into account -- had the Stones released the El Mocambo concert in full as their live album it would have been called an instant classic and been considered an album as relevant for its time as Ya Ya's was in 1970. El Mocambo was intimate and raw and vital and snotty...its mixture of old rockers, ancient blues and new burners was exactly what the Stones should have released in 1977...it was fresher and more raunchy that Love You Live and looked backwards (to their raw beginnings as a Blues cover band) and forward (to their subsequent punky reincarnation in 1978) simultaneously. The fact that it was not an "impeccable performance" would have made it even more "of its time"...and, in contrast to your claim I think releasing El Mocambo as Love You Live would have been the perfect move and made perfect sense...

...it would have been the perfect album to close out that era in Rolling Stones history and would have cleared the deck perfectly for the "new" Stones of Some Girls.

I agree. The other 3 sides of Love You Live were not essential, just a go-through the motions live album. The double-live album was a great device in the mid-70's for breaking through struggling artists (KISS Alive, Frampton Comes Alive, Bob Seger's Live Bullet ) but among established acts (apart from Before The Flood ) there were not a lot of memorable records during that trend.

I once heard that the reason Wings Over America was a 3-record set was because a Capitol exec who decided to check out the once-a-month record swap meet in the Capitol Records parking lot came across a 2-disc bootleg of a Wings show, and viewed it as competition to Paul's upcoming official release.

Sometimes less is more. Even a single disc of El Mocambo highlights would have been a better idea than LYL.

OT but regarding LYL imho Jagger made a bet and he lost it : the bet was to record shows in the most prestigious cities of the tour (London and Paris) instead of taping gigs more or less at random in "lesser" towns (for ex. German ones). He probably thought that a live album "recorded in Köln and Munster" would be much less glamorous than "taped in the city of lights".

Guess what? It was an unfortunate decision because the shows in London were disastrous and the ones in Paris only average while some German shows were extraordinary. Had these ones been used it's side 4 of LYL that would have sounded weak.

Quote
Turd On The Run
[...it would have been the perfect album to close out that era in Rolling Stones history and would have cleared the deck perfectly for the "new" Stones of Some Girls.

But then again would Some Girls have had the same impact if El Mocambo had been released just before it?


Re: 75 tour singing, I like the direction Mick took things in. He was following his muse. I won't try and make a comparrison to the way he experemented with his voice on SNL in 78... but I guess I just did. I just think that's another example of a combination of circumstances and artistic interprretation resulting in a new and interesting sound.

Quote
ryanpow
I won't try and make a comparrison to the way he experemented with his voice on SNL in 78... but I guess I just did. I just think that's another example of a combination of circumstances and artistic interprretation resulting in a new and interesting sound.

SNL 1978? But Jagger has no voice LEFT for that performance. It's completely shot as he's been partying and sniffing cocaine for days. You can't get a voice like that just by "trying to sing differently"

But Listen to how he sings in 81... Its not the same thing but he kept that lower register and hoarse sound. I think it goes back to that performance. It may have been drug related initialy but I'm guessing he heard something in it that he liked.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-28 01:01 by ryanpow.

Quote
Erik_Snow

SNL 1978? But Jagger has no voice LEFT for that performance. It's completely shot as he's been partying and sniffing cocaine for days. You can't get a voice like that just by "trying to sing differently"

>< I perfectly recall that, first time I heard the tapes I thought it came from the tapes>< and when I've seen the footage I got it...

HMN

Quote
ryanpow
But Listen to how he sings in 81... Its not the same thing but he kept that lower register and hoarse sound.

too much hoarsing around in '81?

there was some horsing around allright. I wouldn't say too much though.

Quote
Turd On The Run
I brought this subject up tangentially on the thread "TWITTER ANNOUNCES NEW BOOTLEG" but I thought to start a new thread about this because it is a subject that -- though insider stuff -- might be appreciated by the hard-core regiment here. I saw the Stones in Madison Square Garden in 1975 on nights 1 and 4 of their 6 night stand in New York. This is one of the Stones' most interesting tours, as they were accompanied by Ronnie as a "guest guitarist" (having lost Mick Taylor a few months prior to the tour) and extra percussion from Ollie Brown and had Billy Preston on piano. It was an entirely different vibe and energy than the 1972 STP and 1973 Asian/European jaunts -- funkier, sloppier, and brighter. I know it is conventional wisdom to claim that the 1975 TOTA was a clear step down from the preceding tours, but I always loved this particular tour. Clearly Jagger's voice and persona had taken on a cartoonish bent...more specifically, Jagger's singing on this tour (and on the 1976 European tour) has taken heavy criticism (and rightly so, in most cases). He seemed to spit some of the lyrics out in a careless, quasi-spoken-voice, tone-flat growl...harmony, lyrics, and expressive diction took a back seat. This really marred some of the otherwise energetically delivered songs by the band in both the 1975 and 1976 tours.

I discovered -- when I went back and listened to bootleg recordings of the early shows of the 1975 TOTA -- that the difference in Jagger's singing between the early shows and the later ones (say MSG and after) is astonishing. This is something that has been puzzling me. As Erik Snow really perfectly points out in the "TWITTER ANOUNCES NEW BOOTLEG" thread, "Jagger sang quite differently for the first couple of (TOTA) shows, than he did later. At the VERY first shows, he almost sounds like he did in 1973...to make a stretch. While, later on, he went into a vocal-role that was totally different from anything he ever did previously....quite amazing. Pro's and con's for both those ways of singing." And this is really true! I listened to a bootleg recording of the first Buffalo show (June 15, 1975) and the band is smoking hot and Jagger sings with a ferocity (and tunefulness) that matches some of the best shows from the mythic 1973 European tour. Jagger is in amazing vocal form.

Then...New York (a mere week after Buffalo)...L.A....Detroit...Buffalo (again) 2 months later...the suppleness and high notes in the voice are gone...and they would never return on this tour (and it could be argued, ever). The flatter, growlier Jagger-voice takes hold...the voice that would dominate the remaining 1975 and subsequent 1976 tour, as well as the official document of these tours, LOVE YOU LIVE. I have always wondered how this change could happen within one week...and how come that pre-New York TOTA voice never (ever) came back. This is puzzling...it is as if the divide between the peak Jagger-voice and the post-peak Jagger-voice is exactly at THIS point...this is the point of demarcation. What is doubly baffling is that this seems to have happened in mid-tour! The "shout and growl" vocalizing is not -- as many think -- the only voice Jagger used for his mid-70's work. For the first shows of the TOTA his singing is actually the equal to the 1973 tour...then...after Buffalo and Toronto...in New York, actually...something happens and it is gone...in it's place...well, you know...

One last thought...I think in retrospect most of us hold LOVE YOU LIVE to be a somewhat disappointing live album -- regardless of how much we loved it initially. It has some wonderful moments (especially the El Mocambo side) and it has its deserved place in the Stones canon, but no one really seriously considers it definitive or "classic" in the sense that Ya Ya's is considered a masterpiece. I personally think that the Stones f*cked up on this one...they could have released the El Mocambo concert (far more vital in the sense that it was recorded in 1977 and was a perfect representation of the band that year) as a double-live album and it would probably have become a legendary live album. But here's another hypothesis: had they released the first 1975 Buffalo concert as LOVE YOU LIVE instead of (mostly) the Paris 1976 show the album would have a reputation the equal of Ya Ya's. The band is that hot and that ferocious -- and Jagger that terrific -- in the early part of 1975's TOTA. The difference between Buffalo 1975 (first show) and Paris 1976 is, literally, stunning.

When the subject of releasing a 75 show was brought up, I posted that I also thought that the early shows (to my ears) were a bit more energetic and musically hot compared to the later shows. And I also agree with you that if you listen to Mick's singing and phrasing during early dates compared to later ones where he barks out the lyrics, he is very enjoyable. I have listened to several 75-76 bootleg shows (and attended the last show of the 75 tour in Buffalo-they played there twice during that tour), and the early ones like the June Buffalo & Toronto shows smoke.

Quote
Sighunt
I have listened to several 75-76 bootleg shows (and attended the last show of the 75 tour in Buffalo-they played there twice during that tour), and the early ones like the June Buffalo & Toronto shows smoke.

But the show you attended in August is an exception from other late 1975 shows, as Jagger is completely out of it, there's hardly other Rolling Stones concerts in which he is so wasted as he was on that show. I read somewhere that they partied heavily before the show to celebrate that the tour came to end. Atlanta and Jacksonville a couple days earlier, for instance, is incredible and very different from Buffalo

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Sighunt
I have listened to several 75-76 bootleg shows (and attended the last show of the 75 tour in Buffalo-they played there twice during that tour), and the early ones like the June Buffalo & Toronto shows smoke.

But the show you attended in August is an exception from other late 1975 shows, as Jagger is completely out of it, there's hardly other Rolling Stones concerts in which he is so wasted as he was on that show. I read somewhere that they partied heavily before the show to celebrate that the tour came to end. Atlanta and Jacksonville a couple days earlier, for instance, is incredible and very different from Buffalo

Having seen my first Stones show in Toronto in 1972 on the Exile tour which I thought was excellent and then comparing it to three years later in Buffalo in 8/75, I was dissapointed- just as you describe as Jagger's vocal abilities that night was just God awful!

i was at opening night 7/9/75 TOTA in Los Angeles. My first concert at age 15.Awesome. MJ's vocals were not the best, but it wss a raw performance and a night to remember.

MJ's vocals today are far superior, thought I di miss his older harmonies with Keith. miss the MJ/KR harmonies in the newer recordings.

Are there any videos on youtube that one might know of that would show this change?

In later interviews Ronnie talks about Jagger pacing himself and that was a problem in past tours. I think the partying was amped up for him. He was the social starlet and had a big troupe of hangers on and glitter and prodigious amounts of blow. Add to that, he massively changed his stage show, from dancing in a small perimeter to now dancing all over the stage and doing his aerobics acts, jumping high, using big props, and basically running his ass off. Combine that with the blow and his predisposition to add growl to his voice (he really started doing that a lot on the 73 tour. Listen to Brussels, even between songs sometimes he growls out something), almost irrevocably affected his voice's health. To where by the time they hit Europe he was toast. And had to rely on using his voice as more of a accent to the guitars looking for cardio spaces to take in a breath before sining..which led to the bark. Yeah, this is interesting and you are right on the mark Turd on the Run with your observations and such a dramatic change in such a show time. I also love the tour, and feel some of their best shows were those early 75 shows. Stunningly grunge funk.

He was probably bored with singing the same old songs.

I heard Mick and Keith doing a recent "As Tears Go By" and Micks delivery was pretty odd.

Even in the old live stuff Mick is varying songs from how they were originally recorded.

What JJF melody ends up being sung depends on how Mick feels that day I suppose.

As long as Mick includes a few "Alright's" and a few "Gas's" most of the audience is happy I think.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-28 09:39 by howled.

Quote
howled
As long as Mick includes a few "Alright's" and a few "Gas's" most of the audience is happy I think.

Maddening isn't it.

He got it down to a clipped "arrit na, ye in fa e a ga" in 1976.

I can't listen to his vocals from 1976.

I think he was bored, tired, wasted (torn and frayed) and thought he could get away with it by calling it punk.

I remember an interview he did around 1977/78 where he was asked what he thought of punk, he said "I've been doing that for years".

That wasn't punk. It was just unprofessional.

Vocally he very rarely (live) got back to the heights of 1968 - 1973.

Very interesting topic. I have never listened the 1975 (or any) tour that 'systematically' - in chronological order, but I have also made an observation that there were surprisingly different-sounding nights compared to over-all feeling in the tour, especially regards Jagger's singing.

I hope some of the official bootlegs we going to have (?) derives from one of those 'different' nights.

- Doxa

Quote
Turd On The Run

With all due respect, liddas, I could not disagree more. There is in fact a sudden and dramatic difference between Jagger's voice at the start of TOTA and the rest of the tour[/b]. Even more starkly dramatic is the difference between Jagger's voice in 1973 and 1976...there the difference is really striking. Just listen to the recently released Brussels concert and Love You Live -- it is almost as if Jagger in 1976 had devolved into a caricature of himself. The high notes and suppleness in his voice are gone. I have read your posts and you seem like an intelligent and knowledgeable Stones fan...I cannot believe that you do not notice/acknowledge the spectacular decline in Jagger's vocals between 1973 and 1976!

Regarding your thoughts on Love You Live...again I completely disagree with your comment, "I find it a great album" / "I believe that at the time there was no point in releasing the whole Mocambo concert.". I remember very clearly the Zeitgeist into which Love You Live was released...autumn 1977...punk in ascendancy and the Stones (after a few less than stellar albums) dangerously close to being regarded as passé...almost an anachronism. I remember one New York reviewer calling the album "Café Society Rock"...in fact the song selection (many old chestnuts), bloat, and sloppiness of the album seemed almost pointless to many people. I would posit to say that -- taking the Zeitgeist of late 1977 into account -- had the Stones released the El Mocambo concert in full as their live album it would have been called an instant classic and been considered an album as relevant for its time as Ya Ya's was in 1970. El Mocambo was intimate and raw and vital and snotty...its mixture of old rockers, ancient blues and new burners was exactly what the Stones should have released in 1977...it was fresher and more raunchy that Love You Live and looked backwards (to their raw beginnings as a Blues cover band) and forward (to their subsequent punky reincarnation in 1978) simultaneously. The fact that it was not an "impeccable performance" would have made it even more "of its time"...and, in contrast to your claim I think releasing El Mocambo as Love You Live would have been the perfect move and made perfect sense...

...it would have been the perfect album to close out that era in Rolling Stones history and would have cleared the deck perfectly for the "new" Stones of Some Girls.

First of all thank you for the "intelligent and knowledgeable Stones fan"!

Sometimes a vodka soaked memory plays games, so yesterday I followed your suggestion and played in a row Brussells 73 and the Paris June 4, 1976 boot - Well, said that it was actually quite difficult to follow the two concerts concentrating on Jagger's vocals only - and said that I actually prefer Jagger's slightly looser performance in Paris - as far as his singing goes, I confirm that I don't hear ALL this difference in style etc. between the two performances.

The only major difference is in Sugar (but in one case it opens the set, in Paris it was played after almost two hours of rnr). JJF and Man are quite similar in style (only Jagger's pipes are a little more exausted in Paris).

As for LYL, its main fault is that it captures only a fraction of the excitement of the great Paris show - on the other hand they included Devil, that is up there with the best music ever recorded AND the Mocambo side - and we are not going to blame them for that!

Re: El Mocambo, I agree 100% with you when you say that it was "intimate and raw and vital and snotty...its mixture of old rockers, ancient blues and new burners". I love El Mocambo!!!

But what has that concert got to do with the TOTA and 76 tour?

You might say thank god nothing! But then again, LYL is an exact photo of what the Stones were in those years. And that is the whole purpose of the release.

To release the El Mocambo then would have been a move similar to the release of Stripped after the VL tour. Now, we all agree that Stripped was a chic move, but it came aside with the VHS of a full concert, so the casual fan could have both!

Could there not be an official release of the hard hitting version of the Stones that raged in the first half of the 70's?

We know all the problems they had with ABKCO etc., it already was a crime not to have Brussells released then, simply impossible to omit also the great 75/76 tours!!


C



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-28 12:29 by liddas.