It does exist, it seems.

[www.printmark.se]

A quite useful link to check availability, BTW.


[There'll be no wedding today...]

Wuudy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The soundboards recordings from this tour are
> great. Indeed just pure rock and roll. However i
> have heard many times that a lot of shows were
> real sloppy and not good.
>
> Can anyone tell me why they only toured for two
> months and why did they play a show in a small
> venue and then a big one?
>
> Wuudy


As for why they only toured for two months, (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/music/rollingstones-faq/part2/) reminds me that I remember seeing somewhere where Mick said they weren't sure what Keith's trial in Canada later in '78 would lead to; they thought it might be the end of the band if he was convicted, and canceling shows can be expensive.

As for the small/big venue thing, don't forget that the Stones had been given up for dead by many at that point; I think they originally scheduled shows at smaller places out of fear they couldn't sell enough tickets to fill the large places. After "Some Girls" did surprisingly well, they added larger venues where they could. This dovetails with my experience with the show I attended that year: radio ads first promoted a show at a smaller venue, Will Rogers Auditorium in Fort Worth (a large 2,000 +/- seat theater); when those tickets sold out immediately, a second show was added at a larger arena nearby the following night (too bad for the roadies). See my ealier post on this same topic for more details of this date on their tour that year.

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does exist, it seems.
>
>
>
> A quite useful link to check availability, BTW.
>
>
> The IORRean formerly known as Cousin Lou
> (There´ll be no wedding today...)



I couldn't find anything remotely useful here. Then again, I don't read Swedish....

Neither do I, but if you click the link, it appears an english written webpage about Stones bootlegs.

[There'll be no wedding today...]

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither do I, but if you click the link, it
> appears an english written webpage about Stones
> bootlegs.
>
> The IORRean formerly known as Cousin Lou
> (There´ll be no wedding today...)


Well that worked much better this time. Excellent - thanks for the lead!

saw phillie june 17th 1978,and my life hasn't been the same since.95 minutes but non stop action.great new album,great set list.star star,let it rock,sweet little 16,all down the line.killer show.this show and phillie 99 and 02,really stand out as the best shows i have seen.and i haveseen them in about 5 states,25 or more times.

john scialfa

Here's a case for the bootlegged legacy to offer a positive view to a tour that was trashed by the press. We are fortunate that the Handsome Girls set captured some of the best of the performances.

I was re-reading parts of Bill Wyman's "Stone Alone" autobiography tonight, and I'd forgotten about the falling off the stage incident at St. Paul. Having played with a wrapped broken finger myself in my playing days, Bill must've been thankful that the tour only lasted two months.

As for 1981, I was at Rupp Arena on Dec. 11. This is the one and only Stones show I personally attended. Having been there, and having seen "Let's Spend the Night Together", I STILL prefer the 90-minute 1978 boots over '81. The '78 shows were intense and no-frills whatsoever. At that point, no one knew if Keith was going to prison, so they played as if there was no tomorrow.

I think the 81-82 tour was great at times but it aint rock n roll with Micks clothes and the family show. 78 was the last one but I also think its a bit "dead". The sound is a bit thin and it lacks the warmth of 75. Rehearsals almost. Like a day after show which it was in a way. Keith kicking heroin.

epischedda & bruno : thanks for you guys looking. it was an all day show with terrible warm up groups that i can't remember but the wait was worth it.The stone were great. I know the show has been listed but once again i look for the boot if there is one.

You weren't actually THERE though were you, bassplayer? Listening to CDs is one thinbg, but experiencing the gig in person is a whole other kettle of fish (or lentils if youre a veggie). Not debating the sterling quality of the Handsome Girls and Out on Bail boots, but I know a bunch of people who saw The Stones on that tour and they all say they were absolutely @#$%& shit. They prefer the 1981 and 1989 jaunts. Or previous tours.

Hi Nikolai.......I was there in July of 78 for the Rolling Stones at the New Orleans Superdome show.....it was fantastic. I was right down front and the show was high - nonstop energy from the start. It's still the best rock and roll show I have ever seen. I saw the Stones on the 81 tour in Orlando and the Superdome. I thought the Orlando show was sub-par...they killed again at the Dome.

I've figured it out--this show, as I've heard from "Handsome Girls", would've been great if the band had played a few smaller venues, as they did in 2002-03. What a killer show if heard in the confines of say the Olympia. This is the key--the Stones had a great setlist in '78 to be heard in a club setting. This mix of the boot gives you that close-in feeling anyway, so you get the idea.

Earlier it was said: "Songs from both "Will Roger's" and Tarrant County" are on Handsome Girls. The Far Away Eyes version w/Kershaw even twice, I think."

To be clear: there was no show played at Tarrant County Convention Center in 1978 in Fort Worth. They played there at Will Rogers Auditorium on 7/18/78. Will Rogers is a 2,800-seat theater, and all songs recorded during their stop in Fort Worth that year were recorded there. I can't say what other theaters, if any, they played on this tour.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2004-12-29 07:50 by epischedda.

>I can't say what other theaters, if any, they played on this tour.

Atlanta, Passaic, DC, NYC, Detroit, St Louis. Maybe more?

78 and 81 were the last guitar driven tours, with Steel Wheels and Voodoo a close second. They had the back-up players in 89 & 94 but the guitars were still way out front from all the shows I saw and heard. 97 I thought they showed some rust and Ronnie was sonically invisible.

Milo, NYC
Don't you know that I'm a 2000 man

For me 81 was the last guitar driven tour. Steel Wheels was good and Keith was playig well. Since then we can`t hear the guitars. At least in a decent way.

" It´s somehow strange with the 78 tour. Not often mentioned in Stones books, not mentioned in the 25x5 documentary and other Stones documentarys. It´s like a ´lost tour", or something."

It was "lost" in many respects. Some of the stadium shows were just horrible. The band's descent, full tilt, into the cocaine fashion of the era likely played a big role. Even Jagger looked bad. Pale, emaciated, his voice often times a mere croak from having his vocal cords "frozen" (a common effect of relentless coke snorting), sporting garish eye make up and lipstick and that ridiculous red hat. The "forced" punk persona. The stage was UGLY, the band was UGLY, their playing was UGLY - when it wasn't brilliant.

They tried to make it appear spontaneous and anti-corporate to appease the punk sensability methinks. I think they may regard that tour as the embarrassment it often was. That they returned to the "lavish spectacle" everafter reinforces by belief.

" I've figured it out--this show, as I've heard from "Handsome Girls", would've been great if the band had played a few smaller venues, as they did in 2002-03."

The best shows WERE played in small 4000 seat theaters. Detroit and Passaic being prime examples. They tried to carry that "intimacy" to the stadiums and it, by and large, fell flat.

sporting garish eye make up and lipstick and that ridiculous red hat.

dissagree with you R, a great part of the Stones legend is also due to their look and all the pics from 78 (as for the TOTA75 … the 70 generally ) are the greatest evocatives I have of the Stones’look … and 78 is for me the last tour (talking about their look, I mean ..and specially Jagger').

rolling stones 1963-1982 best live rock band of all times!!

rolling stones since 1989-only clownes !!

Cut the crap already. Give them credit for having the balls to play a new album, heaven knows it's been what eight years since we saw a new album. they were cock-sure of themselves in them days. now they basically play to please the audience. I think they were great in 78

Thank you, mickwill. I'm listening to my 78 concert playlist right now, and it just freakin rocks. Yes, the tour WAS inconsistent overall, and this particular setlist didn't translate well to a stadium. It was MEANT to be heard in a more intimate setting, with the band in all its rocking glory right in your face. This notional playlist, though, is brilliant all the way through--I still think this should've been an official live album release, rather than LYL.

1978 was shit and anyone who thinks otherwise wasn't there.

No, I wasn't there, but the boots that exist tell a different story. I'm sorry that you have so much bitterness, MTM. You have to live with it, though. My love for the Stones has not been diminished in any way, and the concert I'm listening to right now is pleasing to my ears. This tour also featured some of Bill's best playing, even with two fingers taped as a result of his fall at the St Paul show. I know personally what it's like to play with a broken finger on your left hand, and it forces you to pay attention to getting it right. This experience made me a better player, and I think Bill would agree that it was a blessing in disguise for his own technique.

No, I wasn't there, but the boots that exist tell a different story. I'm sorry that you have so much bitterness, MTM. You have to live with it, though. My love for the Stones has not been diminished in any way, and the concert I'm listening to right now is pleasing to my ears. This tour also featured some of Bill's best playing, even with two fingers taped as a result of his fall at the St Paul show. I know personally what it's like to play with a broken finger on your left hand, and it forces you to pay attention to getting it right. This experience made me a better player, and I think Bill would agree that it was a blessing in disguise for his own technique.

I recall the cover of Rolling Stone magazine that featured Jagger and Richards during the 78 tour. I picked up the magazine ready to read the great reviews about the tour. I believe the writer was Chet Flippo and he slagged the tour and the Stones. Jagger was very bitter and had the Rolling Stone people thrown off of the tour. The next issue had many, many letters to the editor protesting the bad reviews and telling of the great shows they had seen on the 78 tour. That was my feelings exactly. The reviews said the shows lacked energy, focus, blah, blah, blah. I WAS THERE and the Stones rocked the New Orleans Superdome. At the time it was the largest indoor concert....the record held until the Stones drew 87,500 at the Dome in 81. I've never gotten over that article in Rolling Stone. It said the problem with the Stones tour is it followed Springsteen in Houston and the Stones show is miserable compared to Springsteen. I thought, how can you compare the Rolling Stones to some poor singer who looks as if he should work in a garage. Time has proven Springsteen to be worthy of praise, but please do not ever compare him to the Rolling Stones. The Some Girls tour rocked.....at least in the Dome!!!!!!!!

mitchtaylorormick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1978 was shit and anyone who thinks otherwise
> wasn't there.


balls.

The tour was indeed inconsistent - some shows are downright bad in fact (Philly) but anyone who can listen to the performances on "Handsome Girls" - especially the radio recordings captured on discs 3 and 4 - and describe them as "shit" must be (s)tone deaf!

I dont need to have been there to be able to appreciate great rock 'n' roll.

Following the punk explosion, the Stones were considered by the UK music press at that time, to be nothing more than boring old farts, divorced completely from rock and roll, and whose over-elaborate stage shows had made them more of a circus than a rock act.

They had to respond by showing the world that if it's pure, no-frills, basic rock n' roll that they wanted, then the Stones could deliver better than anyone, which in the small theatres, they certainly did. I still have most of the press cuttings from the time which heralded a brilliant stripped-down return to form. Indeed, some of the bootlegs (Garden State, New Jersey in particular) do justice to this claim with Jagger even trying to swear harder than any of the punk bands.

It didn't work in outdoor shows however, which is why visually at least, things had to change for the performing circus that the 81/82 tour became. I mean, american football outfits!!! Sad.

Best Tour they ever did. Simple.

You're a rag trade girl, You're the queen of porn, You're the easiest lay on the white house lawn!!

Handsome girls is simply awesome. The best part of '78 was Ronnie was right up front just as loud as Keith and rocking at his best. He did not take a backseat to the glimmer twins and was the dominant force on many songs.

I just listened to Still Life, I don't like the song selections too much but what pissed me off ever since I first heard it was Ronnie's guitar at 75% of Keiths volumn. You have to turn the balance to Ronnie's side just to get the guitars close. Ronnie still sounded great in '81.

Also, of the 4 shows I have seem, 3 of them Ronnie sounded (or lack of) like his guitar was unplugged, this really took allot of the joy of seeing them away.

Why was and is this?