Tell Me :
Talk
I disagree on HTW. HTW 1975 and 1976 is the best version ever. It shows some of Keiths best guitar work ever. And that's also when he makes the riffs, licks and patterns his own. 1975/1976 is when the songs goes from playing Cooder to being Keith. Hazy, almost lazy but no, in charge. Every single note Keith plays on HTW 1975/1976 is the real Keith. Heavy, druggy yet on the mark. P e r f e c t timing. Phrasing. He plays like he walked breathed and talked during the mid-late 70s. A slow animal with one eye never completely shut. LYL version of HTW is one of the first times I really understood the guitar. There's soul in those notes and in between.
This posts deserves this:
YAWN. Wrong Conclusion. Keith wasn't 'limited' by playing mainly rhythm. And it's not all about Taylor. It's all about Keith. Yawn.
The band peaked because Keith was a live wire and sharp as nails in '73.
I do like aspects of his playing in '75-76. Yes, the lead on YGTM, yes his bluesy slide on Rooster, yes his wah on FTC and on FF and his chinking Rhythm on Hot Stuff, (Ronnie is the star of the latter and the reason it cooks + Bill). But very largely (in comparison to 73 and previous years) his notable contributions are piecemewal in amongst Billy's and Ron's. I just think they took it too far, trying to combine too many elements into a kind of circus act show. Keith was one among many performers in a much looser and more casual ensemble.
From '63 to '73 he'd been the main musical director and musical band leader on stage.
In 75/76 it became a raunch and sleaze act and not a lean R&B/R&R act.
They keep SFM in the set as a closer, or near closer, but Keith doesn't rule it or command it or the band as he had previously.
Listen to that Heartbreaker if you want Adventurous and a basically 5-piece focused band (73). IMO it goes without saying. It's not unfathomable.
I rather suspect that you saw them first in '75. Nothing wrong with that.
Hugely impressive and personal experiences our first Stones shows.
I won't give a detailed description of my '76 Earl's Court Show - but you'll gather that it was a graet disappointment COMPARED WITH Wembley '73.
Friends who went to EC 76 with me were gobsmacked and though it amazing, (even though the sound was appalling!}
By the way the 73 and 76 comparison has been covered before (like most topics!) - and this board's creator and mentor was at both and was also of the opinion that the 75-76 period was a dip in form for the band.
This was also the general reaction of the UK music press.
There are and were no shortage of references to Keith's decline of presence and purpose on stage. He kept us waiting 3 hours at Knebworth and he wasn't really worth waiting for, imo.
Regarding HTW on LYL - yes Keith's Rhythm intro is a new take - AND his lead has great bite and tonal quality - BUT (a big but) you have to put up with Ronnie's scrachy rhythm and twangy lead! And I would and do apply the word lazy to the whole pace of that song - to the drums/percussion and esp to Jagger's vocals.
Love You Live?
Love You Dead more like (excpt El Mocambo
)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-09 02:41 by Deluxtone.
No it isn't!
Dandie - don't tell me you have ONE person on this thread who agrees with you ?
And it's just one song....
I must say, I don't like the Euro 1973 HTW version. I much prefer the 1969 US Tour version above all, and then Aussie/NZ 1973 performances.
He had the same role in 1963, as in 1973????
Yep, that tells me that I'm wasting my time in a musical discussion with you.
Let's agree to disagree.
I absolutely love the 69 version of HTW.
PS: You are the guy who said "Blow away, Dandelion when I considered leaving this board, right?
Interesting thoughts in regards to Keith's playing. Never thought that way - Keith becoming more 'original' from Cooder's copycat - but I think you have a point.
As far as live versions of "Honky Tonk Women" go, I think both 1972/73 versions and 1975/76 are the best live versions of the song ever - what I especially have in my mind is BRUSSELS and LOVE YOU LIVE versions.
The way I see it it did them several years until they were able to give some 'live extra' on it. The early versions were great for sure, but because the song is as great as it is. But, for example, I think "Honky Tonk" in YA-YA'S is about the least spectacular song in the album, because all the rest songs sounded so different to their studio versions, which make them so unique (think of "Midnight Rambler", "Sympathy", "Street Fighting Man", "Love In Vain", "Carol", etc. etc.). "Honky Tonk" didn't have that special live treatment. It lacks that 'extra', which would make it an artistic statement of its own.
But in 1972/73 they seemed to finally succeed in adding that 'extra' on it, giving it a live essence of its own, which gives it a 'justified' live identity that challenges the original version. They increased a tempo a bit, Jagger found a new (a bit over-interpretive) way to sing, the counter riff in the´beginning, etc. The version was damn tight and 'hard-rocking' - reflecting the over-all band at the the time. To put it simply, they sounded like driving the song, not the song them.
In 1975/76 they slowed the tempo back to normal, but still sounding interestingly 'different' compared to the original. Keith's playing - of which RedHotCarpet gave a great description - had a huge role, but over-all the "sleazy", funnily degenerated sound of the band makes it unique. The song sounded like having matured up with them, and Jagger's decadent vocals represents that damn well, like icing the cake. The version really has 'balls' and sounds nastý and arrogant, provocatively 'lazy', especially it's groove.
After that I don't think the live versions have been anything special. Just a normal 'war horse' they play with a routine way. Probably 1978 did have some little punk angriness in it, but I'm not that sure.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-09 17:18 by Doxa.
Here you have it:
I don't have. They play it... what... once? So that was just an assumption that they started to play it according to the wat they did it 1973. So to be more accurate, better just to talk of 1973 versions, of which BRUSSELS one is my paradigm case.
- Doxa
About 10 times. HTW is one of the ones I think they did better in 1975 than prior to that, Redhotcarpet had an OK description of it. Another one would be Star Star
Like about every song back then...
- Doxa
I think that is true
Breakdown from 2005 was a very interesting version, but I don't think I will play it again anytime soon...
Then what you're talking about is a performance of a version of a song.
No, I'm wrong to say he was main musical director from '63. That cam a bit later.
But I meant that on stage he had ahd a live and prominent/principal Presence. You'' be aware, I expect, of his around and Around performance from '64-65. That Keith is still evident in this '73 clip.
By 75-76 he was wasted by comparison - his 'presence' was one of a wasted being.A living dead being on stage - who could still contribute some cool stuff but not command a show and the band as in the given footage.
We may disagree - but i'm rather missing a full musical discussion here.
Like most others here I think that Keith and Taylor had done better versions of all their main songs. Things were bound to be DIFFERENT in 1975. Yes, good to see Keith doing more lead. But his solo, for example on one 73 song that he ahd a solo on and of which you have provided an example, Star Star, was beeter in '73 than in '75-76. And all his lead work on eg Ya Yas is better, than in '76. So the new stuff in '76 is eg solos on YGTM and FooL To Cry and the some of the funky new B&B stuff. All well and good in itself. But Ronnie's rhythm on YGTM is - well, hard to take seriously. I've given enough musical detail by now and it would be fair for you and others and myself to be yawning over this.
We disagree but at least you know fully why. Nothing poisonal.
Nor is my interest to know when you first saw the Stones!
I
I think you are hearing what others aren't. I saw them in '75 and while it was very exciting, and I liked the funky edge, I missed the tightness of the band that I knew from Ya Yas and the Europe '73 bootlegs. Keith was a wasted mess, almost a ghost, so it's very hard for me to accept that he was doing anything more interesting in 1975-76 than earlier, let alone "important". Jagger's bellowing didn't help matters, but it was really the state of Keith Richards which was rather shocking to me. No doubt some shows he was brilliant (it's Keith after all), but other than the length of the show, it was a disappointment to me musically.
Not exactly. More like a performance of an interesting version of a song, if you know what I mean.
If you listen to 20 shows from both tours, your opinion might change a bit...
After all, we're talking about the tours here, not individual shows.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-10 11:03 by DandelionPowderman.
Jesus fonzie!
Forget it...stop while you are way behind!
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: May 8, 2014 14:33
Quote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
I disagree on HTW. HTW 1975 and 1976 is the best version ever. It shows some of Keiths best guitar work ever. And that's also when he makes the riffs, licks and patterns his own. 1975/1976 is when the songs goes from playing Cooder to being Keith. Hazy, almost lazy but no, in charge. Every single note Keith plays on HTW 1975/1976 is the real Keith. Heavy, druggy yet on the mark. P e r f e c t timing. Phrasing. He plays like he walked breathed and talked during the mid-late 70s. A slow animal with one eye never completely shut. LYL version of HTW is one of the first times I really understood the guitar. There's soul in those notes and in between.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 8, 2014 15:05
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
I disagree on HTW. HTW 1975 and 1976 is the best version ever. It shows some of Keiths best guitar work ever. And that's also when he makes the riffs, licks and patterns his own. 1975/1976 is when the songs goes from playing Cooder to being Keith. Hazy, almost lazy but no, in charge. Every single note Keith plays on HTW 1975/1976 is the real Keith. Heavy, druggy yet on the mark. P e r f e c t timing. Phrasing. He plays like he walked breathed and talked during the mid-late 70s. A slow animal with one eye never completely shut. LYL version of HTW is one of the first times I really understood the guitar. There's soul in those notes and in between.
This posts deserves this:
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: May 9, 2014 02:08
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
To me it sounds like you just made up your mind for the sake of it, regarding HTW. IMO, even a beginner can spot more interesting stuff from Keith on that one.
Keith's wah-wah playing on FTC and FF is awesome, imo, and it really makes the songs fly. So what if he nodded off ONCE during FTC?
Is Happy a stinker because something similar happened with that tune once?
You choose to ignore the best version ever of IORR, the blues in YGM, the funk of ATPTB as well as the interplay on Crackin' Up - something not to be found on the 1973, with the exception of MR.
I can understand that many don't get Mick's "character" on stage in 75/76, but not that the band hadn't improved. To me, that's unfathomable!
But it is obvious that you think the Stones's sound is best when Keith is limited to playing chords, so Taylor can shine. That's ok...
YAWN. Wrong Conclusion. Keith wasn't 'limited' by playing mainly rhythm. And it's not all about Taylor. It's all about Keith. Yawn.
The band peaked because Keith was a live wire and sharp as nails in '73.
I do like aspects of his playing in '75-76. Yes, the lead on YGTM, yes his bluesy slide on Rooster, yes his wah on FTC and on FF and his chinking Rhythm on Hot Stuff, (Ronnie is the star of the latter and the reason it cooks + Bill). But very largely (in comparison to 73 and previous years) his notable contributions are piecemewal in amongst Billy's and Ron's. I just think they took it too far, trying to combine too many elements into a kind of circus act show. Keith was one among many performers in a much looser and more casual ensemble.
From '63 to '73 he'd been the main musical director and musical band leader on stage.
In 75/76 it became a raunch and sleaze act and not a lean R&B/R&R act.
They keep SFM in the set as a closer, or near closer, but Keith doesn't rule it or command it or the band as he had previously.
Listen to that Heartbreaker if you want Adventurous and a basically 5-piece focused band (73). IMO it goes without saying. It's not unfathomable.
I rather suspect that you saw them first in '75. Nothing wrong with that.
Hugely impressive and personal experiences our first Stones shows.
I won't give a detailed description of my '76 Earl's Court Show - but you'll gather that it was a graet disappointment COMPARED WITH Wembley '73.
Friends who went to EC 76 with me were gobsmacked and though it amazing, (even though the sound was appalling!}
By the way the 73 and 76 comparison has been covered before (like most topics!) - and this board's creator and mentor was at both and was also of the opinion that the 75-76 period was a dip in form for the band.
This was also the general reaction of the UK music press.
There are and were no shortage of references to Keith's decline of presence and purpose on stage. He kept us waiting 3 hours at Knebworth and he wasn't really worth waiting for, imo.
Regarding HTW on LYL - yes Keith's Rhythm intro is a new take - AND his lead has great bite and tonal quality - BUT (a big but) you have to put up with Ronnie's scrachy rhythm and twangy lead! And I would and do apply the word lazy to the whole pace of that song - to the drums/percussion and esp to Jagger's vocals.
Love You Live?
Love You Dead more like (excpt El Mocambo
)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-09 02:41 by Deluxtone.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: May 9, 2014 02:25
Quote
Cristiano RadtkeQuote
DeluxtoneQuote
Wild Slivovitz
Oh, and if anyone has a '73 Heartbreaker to post - the middle break was simply phenominal spontaneous fun - reliant on Keith's fully dextrous repetitive LEAD lick and Taylor's gorgeous effect-treated RHYTHM lurching. I'm pretty sure it's that way around!. (On Brussels?)
Yup, thanks. Towards the end of the song on this version.
At Wembley I remember it as being much more prominent - and Jagger singing 'Come on baby it's Saturday Night ..... (I said) come on baby etc - "
Just live and funky interplay of Keith/Taylor and Billy in equal engaged measure).
And this just showlights some of Charlie's best drumming ever live - on this track - and '73 generally.
but with a track like Heartbreaker in such a lively and funky form, it seems to bring the best out of Charlie - he raises his game
to the level of the other on-form musicians around him - esp Keith.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 9, 2014 02:30
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
I disagree on HTW. HTW 1975 and 1976 is the best version ever. It shows some of Keiths best guitar work ever. And that's also when he makes the riffs, licks and patterns his own. 1975/1976 is when the songs goes from playing Cooder to being Keith. Hazy, almost lazy but no, in charge. Every single note Keith plays on HTW 1975/1976 is the real Keith. Heavy, druggy yet on the mark. P e r f e c t timing. Phrasing. He plays like he walked breathed and talked during the mid-late 70s. A slow animal with one eye never completely shut. LYL version of HTW is one of the first times I really understood the guitar. There's soul in those notes and in between.
No it isn't!
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 9, 2014 02:35
Other than playing the intro to it for about half an hour (after keeping the audience waiting for three), I don't see what's so great about HTW in '75.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 9, 2014 05:13
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
I disagree on HTW. HTW 1975 and 1976 is the best version ever. It shows some of Keiths best guitar work ever. And that's also when he makes the riffs, licks and patterns his own. 1975/1976 is when the songs goes from playing Cooder to being Keith. Hazy, almost lazy but no, in charge. Every single note Keith plays on HTW 1975/1976 is the real Keith. Heavy, druggy yet on the mark. P e r f e c t timing. Phrasing. He plays like he walked breathed and talked during the mid-late 70s. A slow animal with one eye never completely shut. LYL version of HTW is one of the first times I really understood the guitar. There's soul in those notes and in between.
This posts deserves this:
Dandie - don't tell me you have ONE person on this thread who agrees with you ?
And it's just one song....
I must say, I don't like the Euro 1973 HTW version. I much prefer the 1969 US Tour version above all, and then Aussie/NZ 1973 performances.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 9, 2014 08:51
Quote
DeluxtoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
To me it sounds like you just made up your mind for the sake of it, regarding HTW. IMO, even a beginner can spot more interesting stuff from Keith on that one.
Keith's wah-wah playing on FTC and FF is awesome, imo, and it really makes the songs fly. So what if he nodded off ONCE during FTC?
Is Happy a stinker because something similar happened with that tune once?
You choose to ignore the best version ever of IORR, the blues in YGM, the funk of ATPTB as well as the interplay on Crackin' Up - something not to be found on the 1973, with the exception of MR.
I can understand that many don't get Mick's "character" on stage in 75/76, but not that the band hadn't improved. To me, that's unfathomable!
But it is obvious that you think the Stones's sound is best when Keith is limited to playing chords, so Taylor can shine. That's ok...
YAWN. Wrong Conclusion. Keith wasn't 'limited' by playing mainly rhythm. And it's not all about Taylor. It's all about Keith. Yawn.
The band peaked because Keith was a live wire and sharp as nails in '73.
I do like aspects of his playing in '75-76. Yes, the lead on YGTM, yes his bluesy slide on Rooster, yes his wah on FTC and on FF and his chinking Rhythm on Hot Stuff, (Ronnie is the star of the latter and the reason it cooks + Bill). But very largely (in comparison to 73 and previous years) his notable contributions are piecemewal in amongst Billy's and Ron's. I just think they took it too far, trying to combine too many elements into a kind of circus act show. Keith was one among many performers in a much looser and more casual ensemble.
From '63 to '73 he'd been the main musical director and musical band leader on stage.
In 75/76 it became a raunch and sleaze act and not a lean R&B/R&R act.
They keep SFM in the set as a closer, or near closer, but Keith doesn't rule it or command it or the band as he had previously.
Listen to that Heartbreaker if you want Adventurous and a basically 5-piece focused band (73). IMO it goes without saying. It's not unfathomable.
I rather suspect that you saw them first in '75. Nothing wrong with that.
Hugely impressive and personal experiences our first Stones shows.
I won't give a detailed description of my '76 Earl's Court Show - but you'll gather that it was a graet disappointment COMPARED WITH Wembley '73.
Friends who went to EC 76 with me were gobsmacked and though it amazing, (even though the sound was appalling!}
By the way the 73 and 76 comparison has been covered before (like most topics!) - and this board's creator and mentor was at both and was also of the opinion that the 75-76 period was a dip in form for the band.
This was also the general reaction of the UK music press.
There are and were no shortage of references to Keith's decline of presence and purpose on stage. He kept us waiting 3 hours at Knebworth and he wasn't really worth waiting for, imo.
Regarding HTW on LYL - yes Keith's Rhythm intro is a new take - AND his lead has great bite and tonal quality - BUT (a big but) you have to put up with Ronnie's scrachy rhythm and twangy lead! And I would and do apply the word lazy to the whole pace of that song - to the drums/percussion and esp to Jagger's vocals.
Love You Live?
Love You Dead more like (excpt El Mocambo
)
He had the same role in 1963, as in 1973????
Yep, that tells me that I'm wasting my time in a musical discussion with you.
Let's agree to disagree.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 9, 2014 08:54
Quote
Eleanor RigbyQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
I disagree on HTW. HTW 1975 and 1976 is the best version ever. It shows some of Keiths best guitar work ever. And that's also when he makes the riffs, licks and patterns his own. 1975/1976 is when the songs goes from playing Cooder to being Keith. Hazy, almost lazy but no, in charge. Every single note Keith plays on HTW 1975/1976 is the real Keith. Heavy, druggy yet on the mark. P e r f e c t timing. Phrasing. He plays like he walked breathed and talked during the mid-late 70s. A slow animal with one eye never completely shut. LYL version of HTW is one of the first times I really understood the guitar. There's soul in those notes and in between.
This posts deserves this:
Dandie - don't tell me you have ONE person on this thread who agrees with you ?
And it's just one song....
I must say, I don't like the Euro 1973 HTW version. I much prefer the 1969 US Tour version above all, and then Aussie/NZ 1973 performances.
I absolutely love the 69 version of HTW.
PS: You are the guy who said "Blow away, Dandelion when I considered leaving this board, right?
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 9, 2014 16:31
Yes dandie..and your problem is?
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 9, 2014 17:08
Quote
Redhotcarpet
I disagree on HTW. HTW 1975 and 1976 is the best version ever. It shows some of Keiths best guitar work ever. And that's also when he makes the riffs, licks and patterns his own. 1975/1976 is when the songs goes from playing Cooder to being Keith. Hazy, almost lazy but no, in charge. Every single note Keith plays on HTW 1975/1976 is the real Keith. Heavy, druggy yet on the mark. P e r f e c t timing. Phrasing. He plays like he walked breathed and talked during the mid-late 70s. A slow animal with one eye never completely shut. LYL version of HTW is one of the first times I really understood the guitar. There's soul in those notes and in between.
Interesting thoughts in regards to Keith's playing. Never thought that way - Keith becoming more 'original' from Cooder's copycat - but I think you have a point.
As far as live versions of "Honky Tonk Women" go, I think both 1972/73 versions and 1975/76 are the best live versions of the song ever - what I especially have in my mind is BRUSSELS and LOVE YOU LIVE versions.
The way I see it it did them several years until they were able to give some 'live extra' on it. The early versions were great for sure, but because the song is as great as it is. But, for example, I think "Honky Tonk" in YA-YA'S is about the least spectacular song in the album, because all the rest songs sounded so different to their studio versions, which make them so unique (think of "Midnight Rambler", "Sympathy", "Street Fighting Man", "Love In Vain", "Carol", etc. etc.). "Honky Tonk" didn't have that special live treatment. It lacks that 'extra', which would make it an artistic statement of its own.
But in 1972/73 they seemed to finally succeed in adding that 'extra' on it, giving it a live essence of its own, which gives it a 'justified' live identity that challenges the original version. They increased a tempo a bit, Jagger found a new (a bit over-interpretive) way to sing, the counter riff in the´beginning, etc. The version was damn tight and 'hard-rocking' - reflecting the over-all band at the the time. To put it simply, they sounded like driving the song, not the song them.
In 1975/76 they slowed the tempo back to normal, but still sounding interestingly 'different' compared to the original. Keith's playing - of which RedHotCarpet gave a great description - had a huge role, but over-all the "sleazy", funnily degenerated sound of the band makes it unique. The song sounded like having matured up with them, and Jagger's decadent vocals represents that damn well, like icing the cake. The version really has 'balls' and sounds nastý and arrogant, provocatively 'lazy', especially it's groove.
After that I don't think the live versions have been anything special. Just a normal 'war horse' they play with a routine way. Probably 1978 did have some little punk angriness in it, but I'm not that sure.
- Doxa
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-09 17:18 by Doxa.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 9, 2014 17:20
Doxa..where is your 1972 HTW evidence?
I have 1 song..as an encore..thats it.
I have 1 song..as an encore..thats it.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
kleermaker
()
Date: May 9, 2014 17:36
Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Doxa..where is your 1972 HTW evidence?
I have 1 song..as an encore..thats it.
Here you have it:
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 9, 2014 17:41
Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Doxa..where is your 1972 HTW evidence?
I have 1 song..as an encore..thats it.
I don't have. They play it... what... once? So that was just an assumption that they started to play it according to the wat they did it 1973. So to be more accurate, better just to talk of 1973 versions, of which BRUSSELS one is my paradigm case.
- Doxa
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 9, 2014 17:46
Still think aussie 73 versions are better than euro ones..mainly due to jagger seemingly more interested.
Dont think the guitars reach great heights over all the years 1972-1976 to be honest.
Dont think the guitars reach great heights over all the years 1972-1976 to be honest.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: May 9, 2014 18:13
Quote
DoxaQuote
Eleanor Rigby
Doxa..where is your 1972 HTW evidence?
I have 1 song..as an encore..thats it.
I don't have. They play it... what... once?
About 10 times. HTW is one of the ones I think they did better in 1975 than prior to that, Redhotcarpet had an OK description of it. Another one would be Star Star
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 9, 2014 18:28
Both songs depend heavily on Keith's performance. Just saying...
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: May 9, 2014 18:42
I know. The ones that Taylor shined on in 1969-1973 remained untouchable....as big as a 1975/1978 fan I am, I still think it's true to say that
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 9, 2014 18:47
Because of Taylor, or because of Keith and Taylor? That was my point..
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 9, 2014 19:02
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Both songs depend heavily on Keith's performance. Just saying...
Like about every song back then...
- Doxa
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 9, 2014 19:23
Just thinking... should there be a distinction between a version and how it is played? A 'version' is a kind of different interpretation of a song... so one can have a great, challenging, interesting version but play it bad, or one can have an unimaginative, 'boring' version but still play it very well... For example, the version in HAMPTON '81 of "Honky Tonk Women" is not artistically speaking very innovative, not adding anything to the way the song had been performed for ages by then, but it is still played damn well... just thinking...
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-09 19:24 by Doxa.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-09 19:24 by Doxa.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 9, 2014 19:42
Quote
Doxa
Just thinking... should there be a distinction between a version and how it is played? A 'version' is a kind of different interpretation of a song... so one can have a great, challenging, interesting version but play it bad, or one can have an unimaginative, 'boring' version but still play it very well... For example, the version in HAMPTON '81 of "Honky Tonk Women" is not artistically speaking very innovative, not adding anything to the way the song had been performed for ages by then, but it is still played damn well... just thinking...
- Doxa
I think that is true
Breakdown from 2005 was a very interesting version, but I don't think I will play it again anytime soon...
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: May 9, 2014 20:23
Yeah, I agree with "Breakdown" of 2005. And that's about one of the most extreme versions in difference for ages... the problem with versions being 'too interesting', that is, too surprising, they most probably turn out to be just curiosities, with no lasting value... Of classical times, I think "Satisfaction" of 1971 starts to get close to that. And that is especially true if they are not played too well, as is with "Breakdown" (the same argument can be said of many 'obscure' numbers - being a rarity it means that they most probably haven't had much rehearsed it. Though, there are exceptions.)
- Doxa
- Doxa
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
ryanpow
()
Date: May 10, 2014 02:12
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Doxa
Just thinking... should there be a distinction between a version and how it is played? A 'version' is a kind of different interpretation of a song... so one can have a great, challenging, interesting version but play it bad, or one can have an unimaginative, 'boring' version but still play it very well... For example, the version in HAMPTON '81 of "Honky Tonk Women" is not artistically speaking very innovative, not adding anything to the way the song had been performed for ages by then, but it is still played damn well... just thinking...
- Doxa
I think that is true
Breakdown from 2005 was a very interesting version, but I don't think I will play it again anytime soon...
Then what you're talking about is a performance of a version of a song.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: May 10, 2014 03:21
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DeluxtoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Deluxe:
Try
You Gotta Move
Fingerprint File
Around And Around
SFTD
IORR
MR
Star Star
Fool To Cry
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
HTW
Crackin' Up
Hot Stuff
for more interesting playing, and a leading role compared to 1973.
Maybe he was lazy at the show you attended in 76, but obviously you haven't listened to many boots from that tour?
Half or more of these are either unimpressive or inferior performances compared to the same song done earlier. HTW is ten times less interesting than '73, '72 OR '69. Didn't keith literally say he fell asleep during Fool To Cry. I can't say I blame him. What a stinker. A depressing era for me with the exception of Side 3 of LYL which crackles with energy.
To me it sounds like you just made up your mind for the sake of it, regarding HTW. IMO, even a beginner can spot more interesting stuff from Keith on that one.
Keith's wah-wah playing on FTC and FF is awesome, imo, and it really makes the songs fly. So what if he nodded off ONCE during FTC?
Is Happy a stinker because something similar happened with that tune once?
You choose to ignore the best version ever of IORR, the blues in YGM, the funk of ATPTB as well as the interplay on Crackin' Up - something not to be found on the 1973, with the exception of MR.
I can understand that many don't get Mick's "character" on stage in 75/76, but not that the band hadn't improved. To me, that's unfathomable!
But it is obvious that you think the Stones's sound is best when Keith is limited to playing chords, so Taylor can shine. That's ok...
YAWN. Wrong Conclusion. Keith wasn't 'limited' by playing mainly rhythm. And it's not all about Taylor. It's all about Keith. Yawn.
The band peaked because Keith was a live wire and sharp as nails in '73.
I do like aspects of his playing in '75-76. Yes, the lead on YGTM, yes his bluesy slide on Rooster, yes his wah on FTC and on FF and his chinking Rhythm on Hot Stuff, (Ronnie is the star of the latter and the reason it cooks + Bill). But very largely (in comparison to 73 and previous years) his notable contributions are piecemewal in amongst Billy's and Ron's. I just think they took it too far, trying to combine too many elements into a kind of circus act show. Keith was one among many performers in a much looser and more casual ensemble.
From '63 to '73 he'd been the main musical director and musical band leader on stage.
In 75/76 it became a raunch and sleaze act and not a lean R&B/R&R act.
They keep SFM in the set as a closer, or near closer, but Keith doesn't rule it or command it or the band as he had previously.
Listen to that Heartbreaker if you want Adventurous and a basically 5-piece focused band (73). IMO it goes without saying. It's not unfathomable.
I rather suspect that you saw them first in '75. Nothing wrong with that.
Hugely impressive and personal experiences our first Stones shows.
I won't give a detailed description of my '76 Earl's Court Show - but you'll gather that it was a graet disappointment COMPARED WITH Wembley '73.
Friends who went to EC 76 with me were gobsmacked and though it amazing, (even though the sound was appalling!}
By the way the 73 and 76 comparison has been covered before (like most topics!) - and this board's creator and mentor was at both and was also of the opinion that the 75-76 period was a dip in form for the band.
This was also the general reaction of the UK music press.
There are and were no shortage of references to Keith's decline of presence and purpose on stage. He kept us waiting 3 hours at Knebworth and he wasn't really worth waiting for, imo.
Regarding HTW on LYL - yes Keith's Rhythm intro is a new take - AND his lead has great bite and tonal quality - BUT (a big but) you have to put up with Ronnie's scrachy rhythm and twangy lead! And I would and do apply the word lazy to the whole pace of that song - to the drums/percussion and esp to Jagger's vocals.
Love You Live?
Love You Dead more like (excpt El Mocambo
)
He had the same role in 1963, as in 1973????
Yep, that tells me that I'm wasting my time in a musical discussion with you.
Let's agree to disagree.
No, I'm wrong to say he was main musical director from '63. That cam a bit later.
But I meant that on stage he had ahd a live and prominent/principal Presence. You'' be aware, I expect, of his around and Around performance from '64-65. That Keith is still evident in this '73 clip.
By 75-76 he was wasted by comparison - his 'presence' was one of a wasted being.A living dead being on stage - who could still contribute some cool stuff but not command a show and the band as in the given footage.
We may disagree - but i'm rather missing a full musical discussion here.
Like most others here I think that Keith and Taylor had done better versions of all their main songs. Things were bound to be DIFFERENT in 1975. Yes, good to see Keith doing more lead. But his solo, for example on one 73 song that he ahd a solo on and of which you have provided an example, Star Star, was beeter in '73 than in '75-76. And all his lead work on eg Ya Yas is better, than in '76. So the new stuff in '76 is eg solos on YGTM and FooL To Cry and the some of the funky new B&B stuff. All well and good in itself. But Ronnie's rhythm on YGTM is - well, hard to take seriously. I've given enough musical detail by now and it would be fair for you and others and myself to be yawning over this.
We disagree but at least you know fully why. Nothing poisonal.
Nor is my interest to know when you first saw the Stones!
I
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 10, 2014 08:10
Seemingly, symbolics are more important than the music to you, re his presence on stage. I was talking about his role AND what he played. It's obvious that he lead the band musically in 76 for me. His playing simply was more interesting and important in 76. In 72/73 it was Taylor's playing that was important for the band's overall sound, apart from the intros and a couple of places like in Heartbreaker.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: May 10, 2014 08:45
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Seemingly, symbolics are more important than the music to you, re his presence on stage. I was talking about his role AND what he played. It's obvious that he lead the band musically in 76 for me. His playing simply was more interesting and important in 76. In 72/73 it was Taylor's playing that was important for the band's overall sound, apart from the intros and a couple of places like in Heartbreaker.
I think you are hearing what others aren't. I saw them in '75 and while it was very exciting, and I liked the funky edge, I missed the tightness of the band that I knew from Ya Yas and the Europe '73 bootlegs. Keith was a wasted mess, almost a ghost, so it's very hard for me to accept that he was doing anything more interesting in 1975-76 than earlier, let alone "important". Jagger's bellowing didn't help matters, but it was really the state of Keith Richards which was rather shocking to me. No doubt some shows he was brilliant (it's Keith after all), but other than the length of the show, it was a disappointment to me musically.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 10, 2014 11:00
Quote
ryanpowQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Doxa
Just thinking... should there be a distinction between a version and how it is played? A 'version' is a kind of different interpretation of a song... so one can have a great, challenging, interesting version but play it bad, or one can have an unimaginative, 'boring' version but still play it very well... For example, the version in HAMPTON '81 of "Honky Tonk Women" is not artistically speaking very innovative, not adding anything to the way the song had been performed for ages by then, but it is still played damn well... just thinking...
- Doxa
I think that is true
Breakdown from 2005 was a very interesting version, but I don't think I will play it again anytime soon...
Then what you're talking about is a performance of a version of a song.
Not exactly. More like a performance of an interesting version of a song, if you know what I mean.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: May 10, 2014 11:02
Quote
71TeleQuote
DandelionPowderman
Seemingly, symbolics are more important than the music to you, re his presence on stage. I was talking about his role AND what he played. It's obvious that he lead the band musically in 76 for me. His playing simply was more interesting and important in 76. In 72/73 it was Taylor's playing that was important for the band's overall sound, apart from the intros and a couple of places like in Heartbreaker.
I think you are hearing what others aren't. I saw them in '75 and while it was very exciting, and I liked the funky edge, I missed the tightness of the band that I knew from Ya Yas and the Europe '73 bootlegs. Keith was a wasted mess, almost a ghost, so it's very hard for me to accept that he was doing anything more interesting in 1975-76 than earlier, let alone "important". Jagger's bellowing didn't help matters, but it was really the state of Keith Richards which was rather shocking to me. No doubt some shows he was brilliant (it's Keith after all), but other than the length of the show, it was a disappointment to me musically.
If you listen to 20 shows from both tours, your opinion might change a bit...
After all, we're talking about the tours here, not individual shows.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-05-10 11:03 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: Wembley 1973 footage
Posted by:
Eleanor Rigby
()
Date: May 10, 2014 16:30
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Seemingly, symbolics are more important than the music to you, re his presence on stage. I was talking about his role AND what he played. It's obvious that he lead the band musically in 76 for me. His playing simply was more interesting and important in 76. In 72/73 it was Taylor's playing that was important for the band's overall sound, apart from the intros and a couple of places like in Heartbreaker.
Jesus fonzie!
Forget it...stop while you are way behind!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
big4 , colonial , cowboytoast , dedospegajosos , DGA35 , JN99 , LeonidP , Mr.Soul , quarkie , RollingFreak , snarf2014 , sonnystitt , stefanofontaneto , TumblinDice76 , UGK56
Guests:
1788
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10