Quote
marko

Quote
Mathijs
I think each and every track is better from LA, and the vibe is so much better as well. And the sound -really the guitars have never sounded any better than on this tour!

Mathijs

Big thanks to Ambeg amps!

Quote

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
audun-eg

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Laughingsam

Quote
msw2525
Quote
Laughingsam
Mick Taylor isn't overrated. But let's shift the conversation here -- Keith Richards is overrated. Ask any non-stones fan who Mick Taylor is and you draw a blank stare. Yet Keith turns up on all those obnoxious "Greatest Guitarists" lists and often in the top 10. It's a joke. He's a fantastic song writer and a competent guitarist (in his prime), his persona probably has more to do with his high ranking than his guitar playing prowess.

Carlos Santana is overrated. Jimmy Page is overrated. Mick Taylor? He sits alongside people like Roy Buchanan as someone who (despite loads of talent) slips through the cracks when it comes to discussing the "all-time greats"


There is a reason why everyone knows keith and not mick taylor aside from real stones fans and its very very simple, keith richards is the driving force behind the stones music. This is exactly why he is in all those top guitarist list. Not even close to the most technically skilled players but creativity, and originality go an awful long way. The rhythm playing and riffs from him is what sets him apart and gives him a place amongst all those other great players, and more importantly is what people instantly recognize about the stones, not the solo from time waits for no one.


Fair enough. I did say he was a superb song writer. As far as riffs go, he's brilliant but I still consider him overrated. Heck a lot of non-Stones fans think he played the solo in "Time Waits..."


I really don't know what overratted means. Rated by whhom? These useless top 10 lists in guitar magazines with fantastic technical players whom you actually can't listen too?

Keiths playing on LA 75 is quite a revelation to me. He plays far better than I had anticipated. Take Gimme Shelter -a song with only 3 chords, yet Richards throws in something new every 5 seconds. Same with IORR, which is basically two chords in open G, but still he manages to completely rewrite the book on open G riffing.

Sure, Richards is not a Joe Satriani. BUt listen to Satriani playing Stones songs with Jagger in '88....now that's pretty awful.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
I find Preston's organ and piano fantastic, but his synth is very, well, 70's. And loud. Very loud.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs
I find Preston's organ and piano fantastic, but his synth is very, well, 70's. And loud. Very loud.

Mathijs

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
ok..let's compare.
Jagger is better on Brussels
Keith is better on Brussels
Mick Taylor is close to perfection on Brussels and it much better technically than Wood.
Charlie/Bill are great as always on both.

i think some comments are simply just an over-reaction.

the fact that the band had more Preston & more percussion etc.. on the 1975 tour makes this recording perhaps more fuller...and the mix does seem better than Brussels.

have a think about it.
The audience recording of the same show - which is excelent and not much different to this recording and been around for years - has never been put up there with Brussels...i think its an over-reaction due to starvation of classic gems, plus the nice mix.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
ok..let's compare.
Jagger is better on Brussels
Keith is better on Brussels
Mick Taylor is close to perfection on Brussels and it much better technically than Wood.
Charlie/Bill are great as always on both.

i think some comments are simply just an over-reaction.

the fact that the band had more Preston & more percussion etc.. on the 1975 tour makes this recording perhaps more fuller...and the mix does seem better than Brussels.

have a think about it.
The audience recording of the same show - which is excelent and not much different to this recording and been around for years - has never been put up there with Brussels...i think its an over-reaction due to starvation of classic gems, plus the nice mix.

It's not just each members contribution, technically; one-by-one,
it's the overall wibe, both of their "playing together" and the mood they create on that exact tour, and that exact show.....obviously it's not a "contest"; but "people making music"

Brussels has always been more "famous" than LA 1975, that's true, but I know several people on this board - with good knowledge about ROIO recordings who prefer even the audience rec of LA 1975 over Brussels

And TOTA 1975 has been my favourite tour the last 12 years, and the tour I've spent the most time listening to of any RS tour.....such an unique and crazy wibe over these 1975 shows; like music coming from a different world. NEVER to be repeated in their later tours; and never to have been done like that in earlier years either

So i can't say I agree much many of your points, there....at all.

As I'm on vacation, I haven't gotten to download the FLAC files of LA yet; so I can't give my vote to the "Brussels vs LA" voting - then again I don't care much for voting anyway. But all in all - I'd take 1975 over just about anything.....meanwhile I do agree that their *best* tour ever would have to be 1972. "Favourite" and "best" ain't always the same thing.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
ok..let's compare.
Jagger is better on Brussels
Keith is better on Brussels
Mick Taylor is close to perfection on Brussels and it much better technically than Wood.
Charlie/Bill are great as always on both.

i think some comments are simply just an over-reaction.

the fact that the band had more Preston & more percussion etc.. on the 1975 tour makes this recording perhaps more fuller...and the mix does seem better than Brussels.

have a think about it.
The audience recording of the same show - which is excelent and not much different to this recording and been around for years - has never been put up there with Brussels...i think its an over-reaction due to starvation of classic gems, plus the nice mix.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
all i am getting at is that most fans on this board have always said Brussels was better than LA '75...and now people are changing their minds based on a new bootleg release...which I think it the sign of the times..i.e. people desperate for the vaults.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby



...And TOTA 1975 has been my favourite tour the last 12 years, and the tour I've spent the most time listening to of any RS tour.....such an unique and crazy wibe over these 1975 shows; like music coming from a different world. NEVER to be repeated in their later tours; and never to have been done like that in earlier years either...

Yeah, this boot makes me really regret that I didn't get to see the Stones in '75 as I was too young. And even though I am still somewhat fond of the Stones in later days, I have to admit that Wood plays with a fire and brilliance on his first tour - as well as to a slightly lesser degree in '78 and '81 - that he would sadly lose in later years. Keith is on fire and Bill and Charlie play like men possesed. Listening to this makes me realize how much the Stones lost when Bill sadly called it quits. God, I miss him! The hot interplay between Keef and Ronnie is the TRUE "weaving" that Keith talks about but hasn't happened so much in later years. Great stuff!

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
all i am getting at is that most fans on this board have always said Brussels was better than LA '75...and now people are changing their minds based on a new bootleg release...which I think it the sign of the times..i.e. people desperate for the vaults.

No disrespect, but I think you missed my points

'Cos I think the fact that "most people" have always preferred Brussels over in LA is simply because a lot more people have heard Brussels; and also because Brussels has always been available in perfect quality. Most people are interested in the so called "soundboard recordings", and don't care for "audience recordings". Only SOME of us do.

IOW; if we have had LA 1975 in the same quality as of now, ever since 1975 (like Brussels have); then maybe LA would have been preferred by "the common guy" over Brussels, for 37 years. So your point about "them playing better in 1973" really don't hold up, as there's so many other factors mattering in what makes the band sound good together - and also; the material they have, and the mood they create.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
all i am getting at is that most fans on this board have always said Brussels was better than LA '75...and now people are changing their minds based on a new bootleg release...which I think it the sign of the times..i.e. people desperate for the vaults.

No disrespect, but I think you missed my points

'Cos I think the fact that "most people" have always preferred Brussels over in LA is simply because a lot more people have heard Brussels; and also because Brussels has always been available in perfect quality. Most people are interested in the so called "soundboard recordings", and don't care for "audience recordings". Only SOME of us do.

IOW; if we have had LA 1975 in the same quality as of now, ever since 1975 (like Brussels have); then maybe LA would have been preferred by "the common guy" over Brussels, for 37 years. So your point about "them playing better in 1973" really don't hold up, as there's so many other factors mattering in what makes the band sound good together - and also; the material they have, and the mood they create.

i dont agree with your comments about Brussels.
People liked Brussels because it is amazing, and a great show.
Every band member is at their peak.

Now if you listen more closely to LA 1975 there's plenty of sloppiness in the band's playing...you obviously like that type of performance from the band ?
The mix is very good (better than Brussels)..and perhaps people are simply amazed at finally getting this show mixed so well that they are over-reacting to the performance (see my first post).

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
keith was better? have you heard Happy fom LA yet ?

yes, Jagger's vocals way better in 1973...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
keith was better? have you heard Happy fom LA yet ?

yes, Jagger's vocals way better in 1973...

Come on! You can do better than that. If you judge how good a show is by the number of mistakes, you shouldn´t like the Stones in the first place

The two lines where he was singing off in Happy could have happen because of numerous reasons: Bad monitoring, a busted string etc.

Besides, he plays just as good on Happy as he does on Brussels.

However, tell me where on Brussels he plays better than he does on Fingerprint File on LA Friday...

Another reason LA Friday surpasses Brussels is imo the setlist. Not only is it more interesting, but also considerable longer, hence you get much more music to enjoy!

Quote
His Majesty
Your not allowed to dislike Brussels 73 because the Taylor era the best era and Taylor was the best guitarist they ever had.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
all i am getting at is that most fans on this board have always said Brussels was better than LA '75...and now people are changing their minds based on a new bootleg release...which I think it the sign of the times..i.e. people desperate for the vaults.

No disrespect, but I think you missed my points

'Cos I think the fact that "most people" have always preferred Brussels over in LA is simply because a lot more people have heard Brussels; and also because Brussels has always been available in perfect quality. Most people are interested in the so called "soundboard recordings", and don't care for "audience recordings". Only SOME of us do.

IOW; if we have had LA 1975 in the same quality as of now, ever since 1975 (like Brussels have); then maybe LA would have been preferred by "the common guy" over Brussels, for 37 years. So your point about "them playing better in 1973" really don't hold up, as there's so many other factors mattering in what makes the band sound good together - and also; the material they have, and the mood they create.

i dont agree with your comments about Brussels.
People liked Brussels because it is amazing, and a great show.
Every band member is at their peak.

Now if you listen more closely to LA 1975 there's plenty of sloppiness in the band's playing...you obviously like that type of performance from the band ?
The mix is very good (better than Brussels)..and perhaps people are simply amazed at finally getting this show mixed so well that they are over-reacting to the performance (see my first post).

Keith was not at his peak in 1973, he became a noticable better guitar player during the 70s, and LA Friday proves that easily.

Keith is also a very important factor to how a Stones show sounds.

Quote
71Tele
He was trying to step into Taylor's shoes and not measuring up. Things improved in '78 when the band incorporated Wood's style of playing into their newer material - that is until the "Vegas" era where they were relying more on older hits.