Hi all,

I've been listening closely to the differences in the sounds of the band on the US tour 72, Pacific tour 73 and European 73. The evolution is obvious but I don't know what it is due to :
- Keith's guitar : in Australia, the sound is harsher than in 1972 and in Europe, he the sound is fatter and louder.
- Mick Taylor's guitar : I can't hear much difference between 1972 and early 1973, but in Europe, his sound is like a syrup all over the rest of the band.

Do you hear the same thing ? Is it due to the guitars ? The amps ? Or the recordings ?

Thanks

They still had Ampeg amps, but seemingly they both used more distortion on the 73 tour. And Keith even increased that a bit on the 75 tour.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I prefer the 1972's sound to the 1973 one.

Quote
pepganzo
Maybe I'm crazy, but I prefer the 1972's sound to the 1973 one.

I'm a bit on the fence here, but I think I agree. In 1973, the sound was heading a little too much toward classic rock.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They still had Ampeg amps, but seemingly they both used more distortion on the 73 tour. And Keith even increased that a bit on the 75 tour.

Keith's sound was injected with more Phaser in 1975 and 1976. A little bit too much...

Quote
DiamondDog7

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They still had Ampeg amps, but seemingly they both used more distortion on the 73 tour. And Keith even increased that a bit on the 75 tour.

Keith's sound was injected with more Phaser in 1975 and 1976. A little bit too much...

Only on a very few songs. If you take songs like HTW, MR, RTJ, Happy, Heartbreaker, All Down The Line and Star Star you can really hear the difference.

He used the MXR on GS, WH, Angie and possibly one other track.

Here's two guys that also really had a killer-sound 1973:

Frank Zappa in Stockholm with Billy Preston, and Johnny Winter

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo
Maybe I'm crazy, but I prefer the 1972's sound to the 1973 one.

I'm a bit on the fence here, but I think I agree. In 1973, the sound was heading a little too much toward classic rock.

That's my opinion too. The '73 sound was really cool, and I love the variation it gives compared to '72, but yes, "classic rock" is a good way to describe that distorted '70s humbucker tone. All that's missing really is Marshall amps for it to be a very typical '70s rock sound. '72 had more dynamics and nuances to it.

The Australia/NZ '73 sound is a little curious. The soundboards are very dry sounding and quite trebly, which may contribute to that raw distorted sound. But the audience recordings kinda show the same sound. They played with slightly different instruments compared to '72, and mostly outdoors, which probably gave a bit of a different vibe.

Overall, I think the Stones followed the overall trend going from pretty heavy bluesy tone around '69, to a harsher more distorted sound towards the mid-70s. Same with hard rock bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. Of course, later in the 70s, they all moved towards a punkier new wavish rockabilly vibe with lots of Fender guitars.

Quote
LieB

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
pepganzo
Maybe I'm crazy, but I prefer the 1972's sound to the 1973 one.

I'm a bit on the fence here, but I think I agree. In 1973, the sound was heading a little too much toward classic rock.

That's my opinion too. The '73 sound was really cool, and I love the variation it gives compared to '72, but yes, "classic rock" is a good way to describe that distorted '70s humbucker tone. All that's missing really is Marshall amps for it to be a very typical '70s rock sound. '72 had more dynamics and nuances to it.

The Australia/NZ '73 sound is a little curious. The soundboards are very dry sounding and quite trebly, which may contribute to that raw distorted sound. But the audience recordings kinda show the same sound. They played with slightly different instruments compared to '72, and mostly outdoors, which probably gave a bit of a different vibe.

Overall, I think the Stones followed the overall trend going from pretty heavy bluesy tone around '69, to a harsher more distorted sound towards the mid-70s. Same with hard rock bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. Of course, later in the 70s, they all moved towards a punkier new wavish rockabilly vibe with lots of Fender guitars.

Very nicely summed up

Quote
Come On
Here's two guys that also really had a killer-sound 1973:

Frank Zappa in Stockholm with Billy Preston, and Johnny Winter

That's not Billy Preston.

Mathijs

Quote
Come On
Here's two guys that also really had a killer-sound 1973:

Frank Zappa in Stockholm with Billy Preston, and Johnny Winter

Winter was fantastic also here not only in 1973.
1976 was his year!











Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-10 16:36 by pepganzo.

Thanks for your answers !

Regarding Mick Taylor's sound, was it also distortion that produced his heavier and denser sound ?

Quote
guezeg
Thanks for your answers !

Regarding Mick Taylor's sound, was it also distortion that produced his heavier and denser sound ?

I would say his sound got more "wet" and soft (compared to SCB on Ya Yas, for instance), but, yes, more distorted.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They still had Ampeg amps, but seemingly they both used more distortion on the 73 tour. And Keith even increased that a bit on the 75 tour.

A bit?

Never was a huge fan of the sound of these tours until the release of the official Brussells. Gotta admit it was not that bad after all!

Given that amps and guitars were basically the same, I assume that the EQing was different.

Just as a matter of curiosity, in those days was the sound processed before going into the amp (a part those few pedals that were used)?

C

Taylor used pedals in 73.

Quote
liddas
Never was a huge fan of the sound of these tours until the release of the official Brussells. Gotta admit it was not that bad after all!

Given that amps and guitars were basically the same, I assume that the EQing was different.

Just as a matter of curiosity, in those days was the sound processed before going into the amp (a part those few pedals that were used)?

C

In 1972 both Richards, Taylor and Wyman went straight to the amp -no pedals of any sorts, just a cable from guitar to amp. For 1973 that didn't change for Richards, but Taylor added a Colorsound fuzz-wah-swell on some shows, and a Vox Wah on other shows, and for some shows no pedal at all.

In the studio they started using various effects by late 1973: MXR phasers and EQ's, Colorsound fuzz-wah-swell and Octivider, EMS Synthi Hi-Fly, Wah's and tape delay's.

Mathijs

The EMS Synthi Hi-Fli is something to behold!

[www.guitarworld.com]

Didn't both Keith and Taylor use the Hi-Fly on TWFNO? Or did Keith use it and Taylor the Octivider?

Oh yeah, the famous bathroom scales!

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
liddas
Never was a huge fan of the sound of these tours until the release of the official Brussells. Gotta admit it was not that bad after all!

Given that amps and guitars were basically the same, I assume that the EQing was different.

Just as a matter of curiosity, in those days was the sound processed before going into the amp (a part those few pedals that were used)?

C

In 1972 both Richards, Taylor and Wyman went straight to the amp -no pedals of any sorts, just a cable from guitar to amp. For 1973 that didn't change for Richards, but Taylor added a Colorsound fuzz-wah-swell on some shows, and a Vox Wah on other shows, and for some shows no pedal at all.

In the studio they started using various effects by late 1973: MXR phasers and EQ's, Colorsound fuzz-wah-swell and Octivider, EMS Synthi Hi-Fly, Wah's and tape delay's.

Mathijs

I remember reading in Rolling Stone at the time that both Taylor and Keith were using "black box" pedals on the IORR sessions. Always wondered what those were...

the aussie/nz 1973 shows seem more "raw" and "rock" than both euro & US tours.
I prefer this sound.

US tour sounds a bit too "tinny" to me...

People are forgetting that it's more than just the amps and guitars, what type of microphones they were using to capture the amp sounds and what was done to that sound after that, was it always the same guy on the mixer, there are many variables but the most important thing is that you can't judge the sound off a $20 tape recorder that someone was recording the concert on, after all the early 70s was great for any hand held recording.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-11 02:51 by lapaz62.

I love them all but I think Keiths sound on some songs in 1973 has a little too much treble (?). He had a fuller deeper sound in 1972 and I guess that has to do with the Ted Newman guitar? I also love his sounds in 1975-1977.

Their Mesa Boogie-sound in 1977 was incredible.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Their Mesa Boogie-sound in 1977 was incredible.

whilst agreeing with your post dandie (yes great sound), you have a habit to infiltrate a simple discussion about the 72-73 tours (or taylor years for that matter) with your own personal favorite views from 75-78.

Lets keep posts relevant to the thread?

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Their Mesa Boogie-sound in 1977 was incredible.

whilst agreeing with your post dandie (yes great sound), you have a habit to infiltrate a simple discussion about the 72-73 tours (or taylor years for that matter) with your own personal favorite views from 75-78.

Lets keep posts relevant to the thread?

Moi? Read the post I replied to!

I admit I'm guilty now and again, though...

PS: This is how this forum works sometimes. We discuss a topic, then a poster brings up another point, someone replies to it and there we go. Feel free to police it back on track anytime, pal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-02-11 15:25 by DandelionPowderman.

Yeah, that happens all the time. Many threads have gone off topic way more than this one.

I call it pollution when the 69 - 73 tour threads are interrupted by those mediocre later tours. Keep them to their own thread or start a new one if they don't exist yet, so I can skip them.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Their Mesa Boogie-sound in 1977 was incredible.

yep. But contrast with the other three sides of that record. I know many here like it, but I can't listen to anything other than side 3. The sound of the band is drastically better.