Why did the sound of the band sound so good?

Why did jagger sound the best?

Why did keith play his best ever tour?

The greatest tour IMO..

it was the first tour with a real PA, so it was the first time they heard themselves on stage. Seems like they also had to get used to it, and by Detroit it was on.
Was the first tour with the real Ampeg fueled twin guitar attack. Taylor lives up to it all. MT playing a lot more rhythm still. His leads, not as loud, and on SG are more bluesy. Keith takes a good many solos himself still, and his sound is not the mid-rangy Tele yet.
It was the first time they were doing Sympathy, Rambler, JJF, SFM, Love in Vain, HTW on stage. So first time for crowds, but also the band; a lot more excitement on both sides. Plus the political climate favored the Stones, young men for young crowds.
The show had more of a political side to it I think. As great as 72-78 was, it was more of a party after 69. I don't know what prompted what - but Altamont's impact can not be understated.

The sound just sounds so good..rock n roll..maybe its the SG guitar..but I love the thrashy electric sound. .amazing. never to be repeated

The PA, the Ampegs and the new material.

It took a while before they sounded great on this tour, though.

True...but they didnt repeat the sound after..
Why?

I think they got smaller amps. Weren't the 69 amps huge bass amps cranked?

Ampeg SVT prototypes

Ampeg claims this is close to what they used. That is being made today.
The SVT-VR.

[www.ampeg.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-08 16:39 by MingSubu.

Which means?
Excuse my ignorance. ..
It just sounds so much better

just simply a band on fire....

Palace Revolution 2000 nailed it.

Mick Taylor sound so great in 69, his best tour for me!

Lets here from someone that was there. My first show was in 75 so I can't judge.

They hadn't toured the US in 3 years. They took risks, in that they introduced songs that they hadn't previously played in concert, from BB and LIB, and they were killer songs that they nailed. They had grown as musicians and songwriters, and it showed. There was a lot of buzz about Mick Taylor, and he brought a dimension to the band that was new. Having been at one show, I can tell you that there was an incredible excitement and anticipation to see and hear them in the arena. They weren't pop stars, playing to screaming girls. They were now a band hitting on all cylinders. When you add all that up (and I'm sure more that will be contributed from others), it equals the greatness of that tour. It was unforgettable.

I was at the first 1969 USA show at Colorado State University on Nov. 7, 1969 played at Moby Auditorium on campus.

They may have been playing good, however it was their first show, and Moby was acutually a gym and not an auditorium, so the sound was degraded due to echo and other factors.

For those reasons my opinion of this show was that it was not that great soundwise, but in the "lasting impressions" department it scored an A+.

I saw them 3 years later at the Denver Coliseum on June 16, 1972 and the sound was incredible. The Denver Coliseum had about the same seating capacity as Moby Gym but it was designed for sound. Furthermore I had 14th row center seats at Denver 1972.

So the ultimate greatness of sound for concerts has as much to do with the venue and what seat you have, as it does with the year of the concert, or the equipment used to play it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-08 18:42 by Chacho.

Quote
Chacho
I was at the first 1969 USA show at Colorado State University on Nov. 7, 1969 played at Moby Auditorium on campus.

They may have been playing good, however it was their first show, and Moby was acutually a gym and not an auditorium, so the sound was degraded due to echo and other factors.

For those reasons my opinion of this show was that it was not that great soundwise, but in the "lasting impressions" department it scored an A+.

I saw them 3 years later at the Denver Coliseum on June 16, 1972 and the sound was incredible. The Denver Coliseum had about the same seating capacity as Moby Gym but it was designed for sound. Furthermore I had 14th row center seats at Denver

So the ultimate greatness of sound for concerts has as much to do with the venue and what seat you have, as it does with the year of the concert, or the equipment used to play it.

Great post Chaho. That's what I want to hear.

I have posted this before...
I saw them in Boston on that tour and thought the sound was thin. It was just the Five unless Ian Stewart was hidden. I was bored within 20 minutes. Mick was going around in his Omega shirt and cape which I always thought was lame. Keith did not sing which I thought was strange because he sang on the albums. Why not fill out the vocals? Good concert but I did not get the filled out sound of the albums or close enough to it to make me happy. Led Zeplin was also too thin compared to their albums when I saw them in the very early 70s a few times.

The crowd at ye Old Boston Garden was very enthusiastic despite me
Sorry for the semi-negative review but this is what I saw

The Las Vegas Era has the exact opposite. Too full a live sound with all the back-up singers etc. (sometimes)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-10 00:51 by triceratops.

1. Mick Taylor
2. Great new material
3. Better amps and PA's.
4. Bill killed it on bass.

On the negative side, Keith's guitar was out of tune quite a bit, but somehow it still worked. I think the intonation on that Dan Armstrong plexiglas was not so great.

A great set list in general. Some Chuck Berry Songs , a lot of new stuff, a couple of acustic songs, and Brining back Under My Thumb , I'm Free and Satisfaction.

Quote
triceratops
I have posted this before...
I saw them in Boston on that tour and thought the sound was thin. It was just the Five unless Ian Stewart was hidden. I was bored within 20 minutes. Mick was going around in his Omega cape which I always thought was lame. Keith did not sing which I thought was strange because he sang on the albums. Why not fill out the vocals? Good concert but I did not get the filled out sound of the albums or close enough to it to make me happy. Led Zeplin was also too thin compared to their albums when I saw them in the very early 70s a few times.

The crowd at ye Old Boston Garden was very enthusiastic despite me
Sorry for the semi-negative review but this is what I saw

The Las Vegas Era has the exact opposite. Too full a live sound with all the back-up singers etc. (sometimes)

Hey triceratops:
Sorry if you've covered this ground already on this forum, but did you see them in '72 or '75? Fuller/better sound then, in your opinion?

Quote
rocker1

Quote
triceratops
I have posted this before...
I saw them in Boston on that tour and thought the sound was thin. It was just the Five unless Ian Stewart was hidden. I was bored within 20 minutes. Mick was going around in his Omega cape which I always thought was lame. Keith did not sing which I thought was strange because he sang on the albums. Why not fill out the vocals? Good concert but I did not get the filled out sound of the albums or close enough to it to make me happy. Led Zeplin was also too thin compared to their albums when I saw them in the very early 70s a few times.

The crowd at ye Old Boston Garden was very enthusiastic despite me
Sorry for the semi-negative review but this is what I saw

The Las Vegas Era has the exact opposite. Too full a live sound with all the back-up singers etc. (sometimes)

Hey triceratops:
Sorry if you've covered this ground already on this forum, but did you see them in '72 or '75? Fuller/better sound then, in your opinion?

I was not at those shows but going by the boots etc I have heard they are better, with fuller sound, than what I saw in 1969. First bootleg I ever saw was the Stones.

The Stones live shows got better and better as the Mick Taylor era progressed. I saw the beginning of the MT era.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-02-09 02:57 by triceratops.

Chacfho and tricertops: I enjoy reading posts from people like you who saw the Stones firsthand during the 1969 and/or 1972 American tours. Even if the story was posted before. I don't recall seeing either but then again my memory isn't great.

From what I have read here & elsewhere, the consensus is that Ampeg amps & Dan Armstrong instruments were essential in creating the Rolling Stones sound during the 1969 American Tour.

Because the material was good

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Why did the sound of the band sound so good?

Why did jagger sound the best?

Why did keith play his best ever tour?

The greatest tour IMO..

IMHO for the following reasons

1. Had not toured the U.S. in a while and had some stellar new material they had not played live yet.
2. Were energized playing with new guitarist Mick Taylor and were not yet jaded by success.
3. Keef habit was not yet all consuming as it was later.

The 1970 tour was even better. But no film of it, no sound board recording, no live album and no Altamnont (anti)climax.

Maybe because they saw freedom coming their way. 1969 was the last year of their Decca contract and they started Rolling Stones Records the following year.

Quote
kleermaker
The 1970 tour was even better. But no film of it, no sound board recording, no live album and no Altamnont (anti)climax.

Yes, that is a shame. '70-'71 remains unfortunately a "forgotten period" at least for Americans for just that reason. From '69 to '72 the set lists just kept getting better and better.

For me the '69 tour has a certain charming innocence and bold confidence. It was the last of the small tours. By today's standards it was under rehearsed. The band that started in Colorado was not the same band that played in New York City. It was a band in transition and you got to witness it right before your eyes and ears. There was a certain confident restraint in the shows. They intentionally left you wanting more. With the Berry numbers and the acoustic blues the band boldly declared itself worthy inheritors of American RnR and Blues. I attribute the band's confidence in no small measure to Mick Taylor whose talent was obvious even as he was finding his way. It was a tour where Taylor best crafted his playing to Keith's playing. And Keith was brilliant, playing the music he was born to play in a way he was born to play it. He made it look easy. The band was never sexier, musically and otherwise. The show I saw was not the most exciting show I ever witnessed, but even then I knew I had seen something historic.

Quote
DaveG
They hadn't toured the US in 3 years. They took risks, in that they introduced songs that they hadn't previously played in concert, from BB and LIB, and they were killer songs that they nailed. They had grown as musicians and songwriters, and it showed. There was a lot of buzz about Mick Taylor, and he brought a dimension to the band that was new. Having been at one show, I can tell you that there was an incredible excitement and anticipation to see and hear them in the arena. They weren't pop stars, playing to screaming girls. They were now a band hitting on all cylinders. When you add all that up (and I'm sure more that will be contributed from others), it equals the greatness of that tour. It was unforgettable.

i was there too, and as johnh said, a band on fire…and with the sound monitors.

The first commercial digital recordings were released in 1971 (WIKI)

So we were still lucky in '69

__________________________

The quality of the drugs

Why,

First US tour in years.

No fans screaming thought out the entire show

They came to play.

The music, always about the music

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!