Quote
VT22
You're waisting your time 71 Tele, they don't or won't hear it.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
+1

In '71 the Stones were a rock band, in '78 they were clearly punk influenced, perfectly aware their act sells..

We shouldn't over-interpret the punk-thing. If we actually listen to the music from the 78 tour, it's not really very punk-influenced. The influence had more to do with the attitude, especially that of Mick's.

Many songs reached their peaks on the 78-tour, and Let It Rock was one of them. Other ones were Star Star, All Down The Line and HTW + the best of the SG-tracks.

There is nothing punk-ish about this, and this is a typical 78-number. Jagger have never been singing better than this, imo:

I disagree here. I think the attitude exactly is punk-influenced. Especially concerning the older early-seventies "classic era" rock songs, of which they skipped the anthems ("Midnight Rambler", "Gimme Shelter", "You Can't Always Get") that used to be their gig highlights, and chose only the fast and short, basic rockers; "All Down The Line" and "Star Star" were perfect songs to perform in 'punk-climate' of 1978. And the way Jagger sings "All Down The Line" here has a lot of Johnny Rotten there. If we compare his doings of the song before and after 1978 he never put had that much effort and attitude and twist into it as he did in 1978. I think "All Down The Line" from 1978 really stands out in terms of energy and attitude. Maybe it is not flying so guitar-high like Taylor era versions, but I think they really push there hard as they ever can. To me it really is manifestation of the punks kicking their balls, and them kicking back.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

I don't like Leeds at all. The playing is sloppy, the guitars too clean, Taylor overpowers with his leads, the brass too funky for the Stones. And, but that's just my own opinion, the way the Stones played in '71 sounds just very old fashioned these days. It's typical Rolling Stones rock, and I am bored with that. And that also goes for the 72 and 73 tours: I have listened enough to those tours. I find it quite old fashioned 70's rock that doesn't move me as much as it did anymore.

That's why I like the 1975, 78 and 81 tours so much more: much less classic rock, with many more influences than only rock. I prefer the attitude much better of these tours: it wasn't about perfectly executed solo's, but about attitude, swagger, groove and swing.

Mathijs

And by your measure of "attitude" and "swing" I still think '69, '72, and '73 were far better. 1978 is where the slop really started to set in (can't believe you think '78 is less sloppy. Start with Jagger not remembering the words in '78). Some shows were brilliant, some horrible. But the musical standards of the band degenerated. I don't know what you mean by "classic rock". The Stones never were a classic rock band, thank God.

We know your preference for the Wood years. Fine. But your efforts to minimize everything from the Taylor era from Ya Yas to Exile, and to exaggerate the importance of half-baked stuff from the Wood era like Undercover has gotten overly familiar. It frankly feels quite strained at the time, like you have some kind of agenda.

Start with Jagger not remembering the words on almost EVERY version of Rocks Off in 1972

Seriously, the Stones have never been a technical band, not even in the Taylor years. Some of the early 69-shows are a mess, really a mess, even worse than the bad 1978-shows.

I think it's easy to be blinded by the good shows on every tour - hence we forget that the band we love so much actually is a bit more unstructured and sloppy than most big acts out there.

I think it's charming and a part of who they are, hence the flawless shows don't have to be their best.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Seriously, the Stones have never been a technical band, not even in the Taylor years. Some of the early 69-shows are a mess, really a mess, even worse than the bad 1978-shows.

I think it's easy to be blinded by the good shows on every tour - hence we forget that the band we love so much actually is a bit more unstructured and sloppy than most big acts out there.

I think it's charming and a part of who they are, hence the flawless shows don't have to be their best.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

I don't like Leeds at all. The playing is sloppy, the guitars too clean, Taylor overpowers with his leads, the brass too funky for the Stones. And, but that's just my own opinion, the way the Stones played in '71 sounds just very old fashioned these days. It's typical Rolling Stones rock, and I am bored with that. And that also goes for the 72 and 73 tours: I have listened enough to those tours. I find it quite old fashioned 70's rock that doesn't move me as much as it did anymore.

That's why I like the 1975, 78 and 81 tours so much more: much less classic rock, with many more influences than only rock. I prefer the attitude much better of these tours: it wasn't about perfectly executed solo's, but about attitude, swagger, groove and swing.

Mathijs

And by your measure of "attitude" and "swing" I still think '69, '72, and '73 were far better. 1978 is where the slop really started to set in (can't believe you think '78 is less sloppy. Start with Jagger not remembering the words in '78). Some shows were brilliant, some horrible. But the musical standards of the band degenerated. I don't know what you mean by "classic rock". The Stones never were a classic rock band, thank God.

We know your preference for the Wood years. Fine. But your efforts to minimize everything from the Taylor era from Ya Yas to Exile, and to exaggerate the importance of half-baked stuff from the Wood era like Undercover has gotten overly familiar. It frankly feels quite strained at the time, like you have some kind of agenda.

Start with Jagger not remembering the words on almost EVERY version of Rocks Off in 1972

Seriously, the Stones have never been a technical band, not even in the Taylor years. Some of the early 69-shows are a mess, really a mess, even worse than the bad 1978-shows.

I think it's easy to be blinded by the good shows on every tour - hence we forget that the band we love so much actually is a bit more unstructured and sloppy than most big acts out there.

I think it's charming and a part of who they are, hence the flawless shows don't have to be their best.

It's not about being flawless or technically perfect. It's the difference between giving a crap about being musically proficient and professional, and not giving much of a crap. There is a profound difference between the shows of '69-'73 (which still had plenty of charm, imo) and the slop and fvck-all attitude of much of '78 and beyond. Wood's first solo on Let It Rock '78 vintage, for example, is rudimentary at best. All of Richards' solos on the '71 version are epic - every note has a purpose. I still say the very fact of Wood joining made Keith play less intensley because he no longer had someone who was his musical equal on the other side of the stage, he had a pal instead. Oh, that Mick Taylor was such a bore - he just made the whole band play better, how tiresome. I certainly acknowledge that many of you prefer the sloppy-"fun" Wood-era vibe to the musically more intense on of '69-'73, but I don't think there is a strong musical argument to be made for the post-'75 period being better as far as live shows go.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to the coked-up (and faster) versions from 1972. It's a myth, as far as the music goes, imo.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to the coked-up (and faster) versions from 1972. It's a myth, as far as the music goes, imo.

Sorry but I couldn't get this through. What is a myth?

I didn't claim that 1978 version of "All Down The Line" is faster, more energetic and better or anything like that. In 1972 they nailed the song so naturally, I said "guitar-high", but you could say "coke-high" as well. The players were not even reached their thirties. They were transcendental, and the whole performance just flew. In contrast, that was replaced in 1978 by six years older players, who needed to show that they were as energetic as their younger rivals. That's why they sound to my ears like "pushing hard" - that is: trying to play as energetic as they can. This is especially heard in Mick's vocals. He uses rotten-like tricks. Just listen his phrasing, and fooling around. In 1972 nothing of that was needed. They played a fresh song with their natural ability as good as they can.

By the eway, things like these arethe reason why I love so much to 'analyzise' their old doings (that is, when the band still were a living and breathing band literally). You can hear and see so much going there. I also highly enjoy reading the takings of "Let It Rock" here.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to the coked-up (and faster) versions from 1972. It's a myth, as far as the music goes, imo.

Sorry but I couldn't get this through. What is a myth?

I didn't claim that 1978 version of "All Down The Line" is faster, more energetic and better or anything like that. In 1972 they nailed the song so naturally, I said "guitar-high", but you could say "coke-high" as well. The players were not even reached their thirties. They were transcendental, and the whole performance just flew. In contrast, that was replaced in 1978 by six years older players, who needed to show that they were as energetic as their younger rivals. That's why they sound to my ears like "pushing hard" - that is: trying to play as energetic as they can. This is especially heard in Mick's vocals. He uses rotten-like tricks. Just listen his phrasing, and fooling around. In 1972 nothing of that was needed. They played a fresh song with their natural ability as good as they can.

By the eway, things like these arethe reason why I love so much to 'analyzise' their old doings (that is, when the band still were a living and breathing band literally). You can hear and see so much going there. I also highly enjoy reading the takings of "Let It Rock" here.

- Doxa

It is a myth that the Stones PLAYED punk in 1978. They played rock'n'roll as usual. However, their attitude, especially Mick's was totally influenced by the punks.

There is a big difference, though. The androgynity, sexiness and rapid switch between roughness and tenderness was nowhere to be found within the punk acts - but it was important for the Stones's, and in particular Mick's stage persona.

My comment regarding the playing in 1972 was more aimed at Tele.

My point: Music speaks louder than words. Listen to Rocks Off from Perth 1973. Then put on All Down The Line from Detroit in 1978. I think it sounds almost like it's from the same tour. There are several other examples - the difference isn't as huge as some people on this board claim.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
You're waisting your time 71 Tele, they don't or won't hear it.

Hey, I know a guy with typos like yours

Good to have you back

Quote
VT22

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
VT22
You're waisting your time 71 Tele, they don't or won't hear it.

Hey, I know a guy with typos like yours

Good to have you back

No thanks, try your luck in the local casino.

Quote
VT22
If you don't claim ©-rights I'am gonna read this fairy tale to my children tonight.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
buffalo7478
I only saw the perform Let It Rock once, in Buffalo in 1978. It was a mess, very much sound, Jagger kind of shouting lyrics. 79,990 out of the 80,000 in attendance wondering what the f#*k was being played. The boot I have heard of the Buffalo show are actually quite accurate to my memory of how they sounded - which was pretty crappy.They flew threw their set and left a chunk of the crowd scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened to the world's greatest rock n roll band.

1978 was more about attitude than anything else. Maybe they were trying to keep up with the punks?

I don't like Leeds at all. The playing is sloppy, the guitars too clean, Taylor overpowers with his leads, the brass too funky for the Stones. And, but that's just my own opinion, the way the Stones played in '71 sounds just very old fashioned these days. It's typical Rolling Stones rock, and I am bored with that. And that also goes for the 72 and 73 tours: I have listened enough to those tours. I find it quite old fashioned 70's rock that doesn't move me as much as it did anymore.

That's why I like the 1975, 78 and 81 tours so much more: much less classic rock, with many more influences than only rock. I prefer the attitude much better of these tours: it wasn't about perfectly executed solo's, but about attitude, swagger, groove and swing.

Mathijs

And by your measure of "attitude" and "swing" I still think '69, '72, and '73 were far better. 1978 is where the slop really started to set in (can't believe you think '78 is less sloppy. Start with Jagger not remembering the words in '78). Some shows were brilliant, some horrible. But the musical standards of the band degenerated. I don't know what you mean by "classic rock". The Stones never were a classic rock band, thank God.

We know your preference for the Wood years. Fine. But your efforts to minimize everything from the Taylor era from Ya Yas to Exile, and to exaggerate the importance of half-baked stuff from the Wood era like Undercover has gotten overly familiar. It frankly feels quite strained at the time, like you have some kind of agenda.

Start with Jagger not remembering the words on almost EVERY version of Rocks Off in 1972

Seriously, the Stones have never been a technical band, not even in the Taylor years. Some of the early 69-shows are a mess, really a mess, even worse than the bad 1978-shows.

I think it's easy to be blinded by the good shows on every tour - hence we forget that the band we love so much actually is a bit more unstructured and sloppy than most big acts out there.

I think it's charming and a part of who they are, hence the flawless shows don't have to be their best.

It's not about being flawless or technically perfect. It's the difference between giving a crap about being musically proficient and professional, and not giving much of a crap. There is a profound difference between the shows of '69-'73 (which still had plenty of charm, imo) and the slop and fvck-all attitude of much of '78 and beyond. Wood's first solo on Let It Rock '78 vintage, for example, is rudimentary at best. All of Richards' solos on the '71 version are epic - every note has a purpose. I still say the very fact of Wood joining made Keith play less intensley because he no longer had someone who was his musical equal on the other side of the stage, he had a pal instead. Oh, that Mick Taylor was such a bore - he just made the whole band play better, how tiresome. I certainly acknowledge that many of you prefer the sloppy-"fun" Wood-era vibe to the musically more intense on of '69-'73, but I don't think there is a strong musical argument to be made for the post-'75 period being better as far as live shows go.

Really? That's stretching it a bit, isn't it?

I have never said that Mick Taylor was a bore, but he wasn't the genius you present him as either. The Stones had as many off gigs with Taylor as they had in the early Wood-era - we have the boots to prove it.

I think you are mistaking sloppiness for looseness. It's not the same. When I listen to Oakland 69 (both shows), I hear perfection in one moment and extreme looseness in another. The same goes for the 78-shows. There are nothing sloppy about Beast Of Burden, Far Away Eyes or HTW. However, the looseness becomes very evident on some of the three chord-songs, just as it did with Taylor on board.

The way I get you: I think you are missing the great solos, and a more "singing" Jagger. I can understand that, but it has nothing to do with sloppiness.

It's a too easy musical analysis, just dismissing the tour as sloppy, imo.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Listen to the coked-up (and faster) versions from 1972. It's a myth, as far as the music goes, imo.

Sorry but I couldn't get this through. What is a myth?

I didn't claim that 1978 version of "All Down The Line" is faster, more energetic and better or anything like that. In 1972 they nailed the song so naturally, I said "guitar-high", but you could say "coke-high" as well. The players were not even reached their thirties. They were transcendental, and the whole performance just flew. In contrast, that was replaced in 1978 by six years older players, who needed to show that they were as energetic as their younger rivals. That's why they sound to my ears like "pushing hard" - that is: trying to play as energetic as they can. This is especially heard in Mick's vocals. He uses rotten-like tricks. Just listen his phrasing, and fooling around. In 1972 nothing of that was needed. They played a fresh song with their natural ability as good as they can.

By the eway, things like these arethe reason why I love so much to 'analyzise' their old doings (that is, when the band still were a living and breathing band literally). You can hear and see so much going there. I also highly enjoy reading the takings of "Let It Rock" here.

- Doxa

It is a myth that the Stones PLAYED punk in 1978. They played rock'n'roll as usual. However, their attitude, especially Mick's was totally influenced by the punks.

There is a big difference, though. The androgynity, sexiness and rapid switch between roughness and tenderness was nowhere to be found within the punk acts - but it was important for the Stones's, and in particular Mick's stage persona.

My comment regarding the playing in 1972 was more aimed at Tele.

My point: Music speaks louder than words. Listen to Rocks Off from Perth 1973. Then put on All Down The Line from Detroit in 1978. I think it sounds almost like it's from the same tour. There are several other examples - the difference isn't as huge as some people on this board claim.

Exactly! I just listened again to Welcome To New York, the soundboard part of June 26, 1972. If you think the Stones where sloppy in ’78 then listen to All Down the Line from New York: what a train wreck! Faster than hell, Jagger shouts out the lyrics and misses half, Richards makes a couple of mistakes, and Taylor is out of tune. Still, I find it utterly fantastic, don’t get me wrong. But that’s what’s its all about: the Stones always where sloppy, that’s what’s makes it so utterly great.

My thing is, and Tele71 might have a point about me bleating on, I just find the band from ’75 to ’81 a better band over-all. Sure, Taylor is a fantastic lead player, but that’s not so interesting to me. There’s many more bands with a great rhythm guitarist and a great lead guitarist –from a musical stand point it is not that interesting to me anymore. What I find musically much more interesting is why the Stones where so good in 75 and 78: Watts and Wyman where much better in 78 than ever before, the Richards and Wood tandem was fabulous, and to me much more interesting than the separated Taylor and Richards.

I was in this Stones tribute band a lifetime ago. We noticed that it was much easier to replicate the Stones of the early 70’s than of the late 70’s. It was much easier to do a very good inspired-by-Taylor All Down the Line or Brown Sugar than to do a good When the Whip Comes Down or Miss You. And that to me is still amazing: listen to Miss You from Hampton: how can a band be so good? How can you have so much swing, while still begin raw and sexy and utterly R&R?

Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Weaving (yeah, I know!) is in a way similar to the old free jazz-approach of playing music. At its best it's almost like telepathy. The downside is, however, that a song may be torn apart within seconds - when the communication between the musicians is breaking down.

The Stones at their peak (imo, that was in 1978-1981) mastered this form of playing, and got out the potential of it in a brilliant way.

I can understand the criticism, mainly by people who prefer a more separated approach - where the distinction between rhythm and lead guitars is clear and defined, like a freight train engine and the whistle.

I see what they are talking about when they describe the era of weaving as "sloppy", "incompetent", "less fluent", "no extended solos", "coked-up" etc.

Why? Simply because the classic rock-sound the fans loved disappeared. In the early 70s, The Stones on stage mainly played classic rock, with long guitar solos, hard riff-based, simple songs and a heavy sound.

All of a sudden the guitar solos went down the drain, and you never knew where the licks were coming from. No structure whatsoever. The band we all loved became incompetent fools. The musical brain of the band, Taylor, left after penning many masterpieces.

Jagger's melodic wonderment had also gone. Instead he started barking and could hardly remember the words. Bill and Charlie started to play swing instead of rock. The guitar players even changed their amps!

Keith, who enjoyed he's new freedom as a co-lead guitarist suddenly became a bad guitar player. In the early 70s, every tone he played mattered on the Berry-numbers. Now, he played generic, even polished, according to some Taylorite.

Ronnie Wood couldn't polish his own shoes, let alone tie them...

Quote
71Tele

I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended"). It's just that they were for the most part forgettable. So it seems to me that the Woodites use the fact that Taylor was a great soloist against Taylor, while not having any particular defense for Wood's often meaningless, meandering, or simply botched solos that we endured for so many years. Very odd logic, imo.

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended"). It's just that they were for the most part forgettable. So it seems to me that the Woodites use the fact that Taylor was a great soloist against Taylor, while not having any particular defense for Wood's often meaningless, meandering, or simply botched solos that we endured for so many years. Very odd logic, imo.

For what matters, I love Ronnie's solos (extended or not). Always did. I don't find them "meaningless, meandering, or simply botched". As a matter of fact his solos are just as great as Mick's.

C

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended"). It's just that they were for the most part forgettable. So it seems to me that the Woodites use the fact that Taylor was a great soloist against Taylor, while not having any particular defense for Wood's often meaningless, meandering, or simply botched solos that we endured for so many years. Very odd logic, imo.

For what matters, I love Ronnie's solos (extended or not). Always did. I don't find them "meaningless, meandering, or simply botched". As a matter of fact his solos are just as great as Mick's.

C

If you say so.

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended"). It's just that they were for the most part forgettable. So it seems to me that the Woodites use the fact that Taylor was a great soloist against Taylor, while not having any particular defense for Wood's often meaningless, meandering, or simply botched solos that we endured for so many years. Very odd logic, imo.

For what matters, I love Ronnie's solos (extended or not). Always did. I don't find them "meaningless, meandering, or simply botched". As a matter of fact his solos are just as great as Mick's.

C

If you say so.

I am trying to follow your logic ("Taylor was simply a superior class of musician than Wood ever was, pure and simple")

C

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It is a myth that the Stones PLAYED punk in 1978. They played rock'n'roll as usual. However, their attitude, especially Mick's was totally influenced by the punks.

There is a big difference, though. The androgynity, sexiness and rapid switch between roughness and tenderness was nowhere to be found within the punk acts - but it was important for the Stones's, and in particular Mick's stage persona.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Weaving (yeah, I know!) is in a way similar to the old free jazz-approach of playing music. At its best it's almost like telepathy. The downside is, however, that a song may be torn apart within seconds - when the communication between the musicians is breaking down.

The Stones at their peak (imo, that was in 1978-1981) mastered this form of playing, and got out the potential of it in a brilliant way.

I can understand the criticism, mainly by people who prefer a more separated approach - where the distinction between rhythm and lead guitars is clear and defined, like a freight train engine and the whistle.

I see what they are talking about when they describe the era of weaving as "sloppy", "incompetent", "less fluent", "no extended solos", "coked-up" etc.

Why? Simply because the classic rock-sound the fans loved disappeared. In the early 70s, The Stones on stage mainly played classic rock, with long guitar solos, hard riff-based, simple songs and a heavy sound.

All of a sudden the guitar solos went down the drain, and you never knew where the licks were coming from. No structure whatsoever. The band we all loved became incompetent fools. The musical brain of the band, Taylor, left after penning many masterpieces.

Jagger's melodic wonderment had also gone. Instead he started barking and could hardly remember the words. Bill and Charlie started to play swing instead of rock. The guitar players even changed their amps!

Keith, who enjoyed he's new freedom as a co-lead guitarist suddenly became a bad guitar player. In the early 70s, every tone he played mattered on the Berry-numbers. Now, he played generic, even polished, according to some Taylorite.

Ronnie Wood couldn't polish his own shoes, let alone tie them...

DP, it is very frustrating to those of us who passionately prefer the Taylor-era of the band to constantly be accusing of liking classic rock and extended solos. Personally I tend to dislike both. In fact I can't stand "rock" music. And there is a difference between preferring a guitarist because he played more (or extended) solos to preferring him in a certain group because he was simply a better musician and because the band played better with him in it. Taylor was simply a superior class of musician than Wood ever was, pure and simple, and THAT is the reason I prefer him as a member of the Stones and why I think the records and live shows are better with him than Wood.

I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended"). It's just that they were for the most part forgettable. So it seems to me that the Woodites use the fact that Taylor was a great soloist against Taylor, while not having any particular defense for Wood's often meaningless, meandering, or simply botched solos that we endured for so many years. Very odd logic, imo.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

Quote
liddas

Quote
71Tele

I remind you that during the Wood years Wood often played just as many solos as Taylor ever did (some of them even "extended"). It's just that they were for the most part forgettable. So it seems to me that the Woodites use the fact that Taylor was a great soloist against Taylor, while not having any particular defense for Wood's often meaningless, meandering, or simply botched solos that we endured for so many years. Very odd logic, imo.

For what matters, I love Ronnie's solos (extended or not). Always did. I don't find them "meaningless, meandering, or simply botched". As a matter of fact his solos are just as great as Mick's.

C

If you say so.

I am trying to follow your logic ("Taylor was simply a superior class of musician than Wood ever was, pure and simple")

C

And he was. You have the records, right?