They're fake..gotta be

Regardless, one can not go wrong with the Beggars SFTD and the GYYYO SFTD. I've always liked the Love You Live SFTD just because it is different than Ya-Ya's, the guitar work especially but I do like the overall beat as well. I guess same for Flashpoint.

Unfortunately they never turned off the 1989/90 Flashpoint version on subsequent tours.

I am not a hyper critic of the post 81 tours. But stop using the tape sample of the percussion at the beginning of SFTD! It is unnecessary, and shoddy.

Quote
whitem8
I am not a hyper critic of the post 81 tours. But stop using the tape sample of the percussion at the beginning of SFTD! It is unnecessary, and shoddy.

I agree. I would love to hear them go back to doing a guitar driven Sympathy ala Ya Yas or LYL. Alas, I think Mick is convinced that audiences want to hear things they way they know them from the albums, hence the drum loops. I guess we just have to keep putting on Ya Yas or LYL to get our rocks off on SFTD the way we'd like to hear it.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Regardless, one can not go wrong with the Beggars SFTD and the GYYYO SFTD. I've always liked the Love You Live SFTD just because it is different than Ya-Ya's, the guitar work especially but I do like the overall beat as well. I guess same for Flashpoint.

Unfortunately they never turned off the 1989/90 Flashpoint version on subsequent tours.

Good point. It was a gas to hear SFTD in 1989 because they hadn't done it for so long. Same with several other numbers, like Rambler. I think it was a mistake to do SFTD on virtually every tour since. It's much more exciting when they drop a well loved song from the set for a tour or two and then fans are delighted to finally hear it again at some point.

Quote
crumbling_mice
They're fake..gotta be

All natural.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
WeLoveYou

Quote
partnerincrime
I do prefer 69 tour most of all: a fabolous jagger, great guitars and a great rhythmn section. I think this period is the best due to the great production work and influence of jimmy miller: the stones never have had that groove and attitude like they had in those days. the band and miller himself were reaching their peak. what had followed is a consequence of this great chemistry they achieved.

I agree 1969 is probably the last good tour in terms of groove, before it became sloppy overkill from 1972 onwards. There are elements of the 1969 sound in 1970 of course, and 1971 also. I wish we could get some Stonesarhive releases from 1970/71.

69: great
70: lazy
71: lazy and sloppy
72: Fantastic
73: Great, but occasionally lazy and sloppy

Wow.......do you really think the 1970 Tour was "lazy"? I think they were smokin' hot on that tour. One of their absolute best. I think they were even better in Europe in '70 than they were in the States in '69.

Quote
stonesdan60

Quote
whitem8
I am not a hyper critic of the post 81 tours. But stop using the tape sample of the percussion at the beginning of SFTD! It is unnecessary, and shoddy.

I agree. I would love to hear them go back to doing a guitar driven Sympathy ala Ya Yas or LYL. Alas, I think Mick is convinced that audiences want to hear things they way they know them from the albums, hence the drum loops. I guess we just have to keep putting on Ya Yas or LYL to get our rocks off on SFTD the way we'd like to hear it.

Wasn't part of Mick's demands for the 1989/90 tours be that they sounded like the album versions or he wouldn't do it? For some reason it has stayed with the samples as the intro. The four beat has gotten boring. What's funny is, I forget which one it's on - Flashpoint perhaps - Ronnie pulls out a lick that is prominent on the LYL version that's killer. He throws it in here and there.

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
WeLoveYou

Quote
partnerincrime
I do prefer 69 tour most of all: a fabolous jagger, great guitars and a great rhythmn section. I think this period is the best due to the great production work and influence of jimmy miller: the stones never have had that groove and attitude like they had in those days. the band and miller himself were reaching their peak. what had followed is a consequence of this great chemistry they achieved.

I agree 1969 is probably the last good tour in terms of groove, before it became sloppy overkill from 1972 onwards. There are elements of the 1969 sound in 1970 of course, and 1971 also. I wish we could get some Stonesarhive releases from 1970/71.

69: great
70: lazy
71: lazy and sloppy
72: Fantastic
73: Great, but occasionally lazy and sloppy

Wow.......do you really think the 1970 Tour was "lazy"? I think they were smokin' hot on that tour. One of their absolute best. I think they were even better in Europe in '70 than they were in the States in '69.

Indeed. I guess DandelionPowderman took a wild guess, and was hoping he'd get away with it.

Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07
Wow.......do you really think the 1970 Tour was "lazy"? I think they were smokin' hot on that tour. One of their absolute best. I think they were even better in Europe in '70 than they were in the States in '69.

Video evidence needed.

I saw them in 1970 and I think they were no way as good as in 69.
Hardly ever can they keep in Europe the tension of the previous US tours.

It'd make sense for The Stones to as good (or better) in 1970 & '71 than they were in '69 - not worse

For instance The Who maintained around the same jaw-dropping level live 1969-1974. As did Zeppelin.

Quote
Youngie
It'd make sense for The Stones to as good (or better) in 1970 & '71 than they were in '69 - not worse

For instance The Who maintained around the same jaw-dropping level live 1969-1974. As did Zeppelin.

How do you explain 1973 to 1975/76 to 1978 then? There's no rule or law that says they have to be better than the previous tour.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
How do you explain 1973 to 1975/76 to 1978 then? There's no rule or law that says they have to be better than the previous tour.

No but the very best live bands are usually consistently great. So it's strange.

Quote
Youngie

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
How do you explain 1973 to 1975/76 to 1978 then? There's no rule or law that says they have to be better than the previous tour.

No but the very best live bands are usually consistently great. So it's strange.

In 1975/76 the Rolling Stones were another band. Their sound changed definitely when Wood replaced Taylor. Different bands, not to be compared.

I think the best performances of the 1970 tour are better and more interesting than those of the 1969 tour, though the latter was incredibly fresh and charming, having only the five guys playing. In the same way I believe the best performances of the 1973 tour(s) are musically better than those of the 1972 tour.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Youngie

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
How do you explain 1973 to 1975/76 to 1978 then? There's no rule or law that says they have to be better than the previous tour.

No but the very best live bands are usually consistently great. So it's strange.

In 1975/76 the Rolling Stones were another band. Their sound changed definitely when Wood replaced Taylor. Different bands, not to be compared.

I think the best performances of the 1970 tour are better and more interesting than those of the 1969 tour, though the latter was incredibly fresh and charming, having only the five guys playing. In the same way I believe the best performances of the 1973 tour(s) are musically better than those of the 1972 tour.

Different band, yes, but that should not dictate how good they play since the main engine stayed the same. The difference between 1975/76 and 1978 is astonishing. But to listen to how tight they were in 1973 and then listen to 1975/76 recordings, something changed and I think it was more Charlie than having Ronnie. Then again it may have been Keith and all his whacked out-ness influencing his playing. We'll leave Mick Jagger's 1975/76 "singing" out of this one.

Quote
Mathijs
One verse was edited out, available on several boots. Rest is all original.
Mathijs

We have Ya Yas and the acetate.
Which boot has the audience recording to confirm there has not been an edit of the rest?

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Youngie

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
How do you explain 1973 to 1975/76 to 1978 then? There's no rule or law that says they have to be better than the previous tour.

No but the very best live bands are usually consistently great. So it's strange.

In 1975/76 the Rolling Stones were another band. Their sound changed definitely when Wood replaced Taylor. Different bands, not to be compared.

I think the best performances of the 1970 tour are better and more interesting than those of the 1969 tour, though the latter was incredibly fresh and charming, having only the five guys playing. In the same way I believe the best performances of the 1973 tour(s) are musically better than those of the 1972 tour.

Different band, yes, but that should not dictate how good they play since the main engine stayed the same. The difference between 1975/76 and 1978 is astonishing. But to listen to how tight they were in 1973 and then listen to 1975/76 recordings, something changed and I think it was more Charlie than having Ronnie. Then again it may have been Keith and all his whacked out-ness influencing his playing. We'll leave Mick Jagger's 1975/76 "singing" out of this one.

Its a bit unfair to Ronnie that his first tour is judged by 75/76. Because there was also much Billy Preston, who was terrible on many tunes, there was BP's backup singing; there was Ollie Brown, who's input was major IMO.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Youngie

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
How do you explain 1973 to 1975/76 to 1978 then? There's no rule or law that says they have to be better than the previous tour.

No but the very best live bands are usually consistently great. So it's strange.

In 1975/76 the Rolling Stones were another band. Their sound changed definitely when Wood replaced Taylor. Different bands, not to be compared.

I think the best performances of the 1970 tour are better and more interesting than those of the 1969 tour, though the latter was incredibly fresh and charming, having only the five guys playing. In the same way I believe the best performances of the 1973 tour(s) are musically better than those of the 1972 tour.

Different band, yes, but that should not dictate how good they play since the main engine stayed the same. The difference between 1975/76 and 1978 is astonishing. But to listen to how tight they were in 1973 and then listen to 1975/76 recordings, something changed and I think it was more Charlie than having Ronnie. Then again it may have been Keith and all his whacked out-ness influencing his playing. We'll leave Mick Jagger's 1975/76 "singing" out of this one.

I agree with Skip... WeLoveToPlayTheBlues here, and I don't see the difference such drastically as kleermaker does. I think the difference between 1975/76 and 78 is actually bigger than between 1973 and 1975/76. In 1975 Ronnie was filling the shoes of Taylor (with his own touch, of course) and over-all the concept of the sound didn't much differ. Even in the beginning of the tour Jagger's vocals were quite similar to the ones he did in 1973 (we had a great thread of that recently). And there were a lot of signs of carnevalism already in 1973 (compared to 1972) that would be taken further in 1975. Okay, the band took sloppier but that also might something to do with getting tired to the old, a bit updated concept. (The term 'charming decadence' is the one that occurs to my mind when I think of 1975/76 tour.)

But in 1978 they had really adopted a new sound. The whole engine was reinvented. The difference in sounds and approach that took place then was only second to the ones between 1967 and 1969 or 1982 and 1989.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-26 12:26 by Doxa.

Sorry I continue a bit my above post. I guess for dedicated and cultivated Taylorian ears that raelly approciate and hear the nuances during that era, the sound that took place in 1975 was not just a disappointment but also distinguishely different. Especially if the crucial thing that matters is the solo guitar. But, for example, for myself, a kid of Pathe Marconi era, LOVE YOU LIVE always sounded like a bad or tired version of GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!, whereas STILL LIFE or "When The Whip Comes Down" in SUCKING IN THE SEVENIES sounded completetely different. Of course, when I get all the bootlegs in my hands, and started to 'know' more, my picture came more detailed and I started to see more nunaces, etc. But still I think even to this day, the big picture has remained the same for me. One feature of it is that I have never 'learned' to listen the differences of solo guistarists so closely that they really matter so much. I think the most exciting thing in this band lies in somewhere else. A good solo ices the cake nicely but it is the cake that is delicious and a real deal there.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-26 12:39 by Doxa.

For me, the main element which makes a good version of SYmpathy is the way it gets built up to a mad crazy samba with the guitar solos taking it to it's climax. Hence GYYO and Love you Live being my two favourites. Without spiralling too much into the old Taylor v Wood debate,I think both guitarists shine respectivley on those two live recordings..but it has to be said the two versions are completely different - which for me shows what a brilliant song it is in that it can be changed from it's conception on One Plus One as a folky strum along to those two distinct versions and yet still have millions of people think all three versions are outstanding. It's a unique song in the history of Rock music, a few bands have tried to create similar and failed miserably.

I agree with many of you in that once we hit the Vegas years it lost something and that is mainly because it became less guitar driven, allowing Keith to just noodle those same three or four notes rather than attempt anything resembling a solo. Even Ron, whilst grimacing as if he is delivering the devil of all solos fails to impress in these years. Having said all that, if they toured, it's the one War Horse I'd like to still hear if only for the dancability of the song!

Quote
crumbling_mice
For me, the main element which makes a good version of SYmpathy is the way it gets built up to a mad crazy samba with the guitar solos taking it to it's climax. Hence GYYO and Love you Live being my two favourites. Without spiralling too much into the old Taylor v Wood debate,I think both guitarists shine respectivley on those two live recordings..but it has to be said the two versions are completely different - which for me shows what a brilliant song it is in that it can be changed from it's conception on One Plus One as a folky strum along to those two distinct versions and yet still have millions of people think all three versions are outstanding. It's a unique song in the history of Rock music, a few bands have tried to create similar and failed miserably.

Right on! What also fascinates me is the evolution of how the Stones would eventually perform SFTD in concert when it was still a fairly new song. Rock and Roll Circus tried to emulate the studio version to an extent. At Hyde Park, they still started with the tribal drumming but you can hear hints of what Keith and Mick taylor would later play on the '69 tour. By '69 they had transformed it into something new, fresh and brilliant. Hyde Park was kind of a trainwreck by comparison. In 1975, with Wood, it was sloppier but still powerful. Don't like Jagger's vocals compared to Ya Yas but the ever-building dual guitar jam at the end is transcendant.

It has to be the biggest change live for a song for the Stones, the 1969 version compared to the LP version. They've not changed a song as much ever since. Under My Thumb got changed in 1981/82 by being sped up and more rocking and Shattered on the same tour really got hammered and actually detracted from the LP version.

The guitar work in the GYYYO version is the best, of course, and LYL's version will always be second. The third and fourth ones I never listen to anymore since they are very similar and simply not as interesting or as good.

Well, if nothing else we have narrowed the live versions to the two which are on the official live albums. This makes a change, as usually the better versions are languishing in the vaults. I just wish I could see the live footage of the GYYYO version. From what people have said it doesn't look likely although while it is in existence there is hope...maybe I'll start a petition! If the majority of Stones fans think it's the best version then it would make sense to release it this year.

Quote
crumbling_mice
Well, if nothing else we have narrowed the live versions to the two which are on the official live albums. This makes a change, as usually the better versions are languishing in the vaults. I just wish I could see the live footage of the GYYYO version. From what people have said it doesn't look likely although while it is in existence there is hope...maybe I'll start a petition! If the majority of Stones fans think it's the best version then it would make sense to release it this year.

The LYL-version doensn't have the tragic darkness the Ya Ya's version has. Not to forget the Baltimore and Altamont versions.

Quote
crumbling_mice
Well, if nothing else we have narrowed the live versions to the two which are on the official live albums. This makes a change, as usually the better versions are languishing in the vaults. I just wish I could see the live footage of the GYYYO version. From what people have said it doesn't look likely although while it is in existence there is hope...maybe I'll start a petition! If the majority of Stones fans think it's the best version then it would make sense to release it this year.

Was the song even filmed?

Quote
smokeydusky

Quote
Mathijs
One verse was edited out, available on several boots. Rest is all original.
Mathijs

We have Ya Yas and the acetate.
Which boot has the audience recording to confirm there has not been an edit of the rest?

well, none i suppose , but all verses are available but one chorus is missing ( i tried and had to give up , its not clear which one or part of one).
both keiths and micks solos seem to be too fluid to edit.

One of the main differences with the way they played Sympathy in 69/70 was the riff that Keith played pretty much throughout the song. I haven't listened to the LYL version in many years, since probably 1979, but I recall he only played the riff for a few brief moments. I noticed when they played it in Seattle during the Bigger Bang tour Ron played the riff once, and then smiled at Keith, who nodded back. But otherwise it has not been a guitar driven song like it was in 69. Maybe Keith decided he didn't like the riff anymore. Someoone should ask him.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
crumbling_mice
Well, if nothing else we have narrowed the live versions to the two which are on the official live albums. This makes a change, as usually the better versions are languishing in the vaults. I just wish I could see the live footage of the GYYYO version. From what people have said it doesn't look likely although while it is in existence there is hope...maybe I'll start a petition! If the majority of Stones fans think it's the best version then it would make sense to release it this year.

The LYL-version doensn't have the tragic darkness the Ya Ya's version has. Not to forget the Baltimore and Altamont versions.

I have to agree here. Yes the guitar solos are significant in both versions. (69 and 76). Taylor and Wood. personally I much prefer Keith's approach in 69. But it is Jagger who delivers the song 100% differently after a few years; never to return. In 69 I felt like he was up there delivering a message, something he believed in, and wanted to share. Same with the Blues earlier.
In 76 he delivers weighty lyrics like Sympathy in that rushed, slurred manner - makes no sense IMO.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
crumbling_mice
Well, if nothing else we have narrowed the live versions to the two which are on the official live albums. This makes a change, as usually the better versions are languishing in the vaults. I just wish I could see the live footage of the GYYYO version. From what people have said it doesn't look likely although while it is in existence there is hope...maybe I'll start a petition! If the majority of Stones fans think it's the best version then it would make sense to release it this year.

The LYL-version doensn't have the tragic darkness the Ya Ya's version has. Not to forget the Baltimore and Altamont versions.

I have to agree here. Yes the guitar solos are significant in both versions. (69 and 76). Taylor and Wood. personally I much prefer Keith's approach in 69. But it is Jagger who delivers the song 100% differently after a few years; never to return. In 69 I felt like he was up there delivering a message, something he believed in, and wanted to share. Same with the Blues earlier.
In 76 he delivers weighty lyrics like Sympathy in that rushed, slurred manner - makes no sense IMO.

The LYL version is an explosion of positive energy - thank god it is not dark, that is exactly what makes it great! And Jagger? He sings Devil like JB would - and I love it.

As I said, Ya Ya's version is truly great, but what what makes it something else is the solo section. Until then its good, well performed, excellent in many ways, but it has the pace of a song that comes early in the set.

LYL version is dynamite from the very first seconds. Just listen to Keith's first round of chords - he basically plays with one guitar what on Ya YAs is arrangemed for two, and that intro alone is a KILLER. It gets your bum instantly moving!

THAT is what the rolling stones are about on my book.

C