Quote
kleermaker

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
kleermaker
Regarding to those who reacted on my 'fun' post:

Is it me being so smart or you being so stupid?

From your point of view, I'd be willing to bet the answer is "Both".

From my point of view, I hope you don't hurt your arm while trying to pat yourself on the back.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I mean that seemingly no one gets my point. It must be too difficult. And I'm not willing to explain it. Think for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

Well, one little illustration. Imagine you go to a classical concert - and of course enjoying the music is a form of having fun (even while you stay sitting on your chair, don't dance or drink too much beer) - and the conductor and his orchestra have tons of fun, slamming each other on their shoulders, laughing to the audience, waving their violins, flutes or whatever instrument and playing lousy. Well, do you say then afterwards: Priceless? I guess not.

O well, classical music is all about seriousness and jazz, rock, blues etc. all about fun. We go to those shows to see the musicians having a good time, putting the music on the second or third place at best. We have fun if they have fun.

But I had 'fun' when I went to the Stones in 1973 and they played as good as they could, without playing air guitar, smoking, hugging during the concert and all those kinds of clownesque things. But you people just go to those shows to see all those things happen.

You should have stopped at "I'm not willing to explain it" as your attempt to insult me and the rest of "you people" was pretty much time wasted as it really didn't make me (or I imagine anyone else) feel inferior to you. Unless it made you feel superior, then I guess it was at least half effective.

Enjoy your bootlegs!

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
kleermaker
Regarding to those who reacted on my 'fun' post:

Is it me being so smart or you being so stupid?

From your point of view, I'd be willing to bet the answer is "Both".

From my point of view, I hope you don't hurt your arm while trying to pat yourself on the back.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I mean that seemingly no one gets my point. It must be too difficult. And I'm not willing to explain it. Think for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

Well, one little illustration. Imagine you go to a classical concert - and of course enjoying the music is a form of having fun (even while you stay sitting on your chair, don't dance or drink too much beer) - and the conductor and his orchestra have tons of fun, slamming each other on their shoulders, laughing to the audience, waving their violins, flutes or whatever instrument and playing lousy. Well, do you say then afterwards: Priceless? I guess not.

O well, classical music is all about seriousness and jazz, rock, blues etc. all about fun. We go to those shows to see the musicians having a good time, putting the music on the second or third place at best. We have fun if they have fun.

But I had 'fun' when I went to the Stones in 1973 and they played as good as they could, without playing air guitar, smoking, hugging during the concert and all those kinds of clownesque things. But you people just go to those shows to see all those things happen.

Having fun and playing good music are not mutually exclusive. In fact when you become as good at it as the Stones are, one of the benefits is certainly being able to have more fun while still playing good. And I certainly don't go to shows to see the clownesque things you mention. They really have little to do with the music.

Perhaps they are more serious in the rehearsals when they are concentrating on getting the parts right, but to be honest, even in 1973 the music the Stones were playing is not so difficult and complicated that after playing it a few times you could say they were truly challenging themselves....they were having fun performing it. I also think they were more introverted in 1973 because they were all so stoned. Not sure how that affected the seriousness of the performance but it did probably take more concentration to stay with the program...but this is really another topic altogether.

Maybe you could give us some examples of live rock music you've seen recently where the band is demonstrating the seriousness you think necessary to produce good music. Or did all that truly end for you with the 1973 Stones?

I'm not being argumentative, I truly just want to know what makes you tick and understand some of your unusual comments.

what's for supper?

Quote
Stones50
what's for supper?

Ice cream, err I mean I'm fasting tonight, only spiritual food for me in the form of Beggars Banquet and Goat's Head Soup.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
kleermaker
Regarding to those who reacted on my 'fun' post:

Is it me being so smart or you being so stupid?

From your point of view, I'd be willing to bet the answer is "Both".

From my point of view, I hope you don't hurt your arm while trying to pat yourself on the back.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I mean that seemingly no one gets my point. It must be too difficult. And I'm not willing to explain it. Think for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

Well, one little illustration. Imagine you go to a classical concert - and of course enjoying the music is a form of having fun (even while you stay sitting on your chair, don't dance or drink too much beer) - and the conductor and his orchestra have tons of fun, slamming each other on their shoulders, laughing to the audience, waving their violins, flutes or whatever instrument and playing lousy. Well, do you say then afterwards: Priceless? I guess not.

O well, classical music is all about seriousness and jazz, rock, blues etc. all about fun. We go to those shows to see the musicians having a good time, putting the music on the second or third place at best. We have fun if they have fun.

But I had 'fun' when I went to the Stones in 1973 and they played as good as they could, without playing air guitar, smoking, hugging during the concert and all those kinds of clownesque things. But you people just go to those shows to see all those things happen.

'I'm not willing to explain it.'
*Proceeds to explain it*


I can't say I get your point, kleermaker, but I can certainly engage with it.

It's illogical, and your subsequent statement regarding a classical concert is a false analogy.

Listen to mr_dja and Naturalust, two of the voices of reason with regards to this discussion.

.....

Olly.

By as early as 1972 the wheels were coming off.

New guitarist in tow, they had found their way into a voodoo trance blues in Nov 69 that they would never top. You could hear it in their performances. Mick, never ever so vulnerable, so soulful, so angry again. Mick Taylor weaving dreams in "Love in Vain" and "I'm Free" and then he and Keith burning arenas to the ground in the "Street Fighting Man" finale. Bill so tight, and Charlie just hanging on for dear life (listen to him in the last minute or two of "Sympathy for the Devil" on GYYYO; that man is barely holding on!) but oh sooo good. Every note seemed to matter. The band had stepped into the void left by The Beatles and they were untouchably cool. A nation at the end of one of its most turbulent decades turned its eyes Stones-ward.

By 72 it had all changed. After Altamont, after Mick and Keith looking down the throat of the death-rattle of the free-love 60's and turning ... inward. Because where else could you turn after the craziness of that tour and that last festival--what did these people want from them? After the "epic" scope of "Gimme Shelter," "Midnight Rambler," and "You Can't Always Get What You Want," the songs on STICKY FINGERS became more introspective, more tortured, more decayed. That was OK. The songs were still good, even great. Then, with EXILE, they became miniaturists, the look inside became microscopic--you could feel the speed bumping through their veins, the night-sweats, every furtive look and paranoid backward glance. But, again, they had painted themselves into a bit of a corner: my god, where could they possibly go from there?

To GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, and BLACK AND BLUE. And it was over. Bam.

In my earlier post, I may have put too much importance on the role of GHS in their decline. Having had a front row seat, though, I can tell you that The Stones were being hounded on two fronts:

1) Rock fans going to Zeppelin, who were now the biggest band on the planet. I saw both The Stones and Zeppelin in June of 1972 and it was VERY clear who were the "hotter" band: LZ. The Stones weren't turning out world-shaking anthems anymore; their best EXILE song (and one of their best songs ever) was about a guy so beaten up and battered he only got off in his dreams. Meanwhile, Zeppelin was releasing "Rock and Roll," and "Black Dog," and "Stairway to Heaven," and "When the Levee Breaks." As good as "Ventilator Blues" is--and it is very good--it was clear who the average rock fan was now going to be turning to.

2) Cool kids going to Bowie. He wasn't a commercial threat but he had EVERYTHING Jagger wanted: he was the IT girl. Between the time EXILE came out and GHS was released, Bowie had taken Ziggy to the stars and retired him, having already moved on. The speed of pop life in the early 70's was something. When Mick came out prancing and glittered in the "Dancing With Mr. D" promo video he was no longer the androgynous apocalyptic omega uncle sam boy ... he had become a follower, a glam wanna-be, now over 30 and so so sad.

I don't know whether you should be happy on stage or mean on stage in order to produce great music. Most great live music I have heard--in any genre--in my life has been produced by people who were concentrating, experimenting, grasping for something greater than just notes on a page. I suppose you can do that with either a grin or a frown.

Quote
LongBeachArena72
By as early as 1972 the wheels were coming off.

New guitarist in tow, they had found their way into a voodoo trance blues in Nov 69 that they would never top. You could hear it in their performances. Mick, never ever so vulnerable, so soulful, so angry again. Mick Taylor weaving dreams in "Love in Vain" and "I'm Free" and then he and Keith burning arenas to the ground in the "Street Fighting Man" finale. Bill so tight, and Charlie just hanging on for dear life (listen to him in the last minute or two of "Sympathy for the Devil" on GYYYO; that man is barely holding on!) but oh sooo good. Every note seemed to matter. The band had stepped into the void left by The Beatles and they were untouchably cool. A nation at the end of one of its most turbulent decades turned its eyes Stones-ward.

By 72 it had all changed. After Altamont, after Mick and Keith looking down the throat of the death-rattle of the free-love 60's and turning ... inward. Because where else could you turn after the craziness of that tour and that last festival--what did these people want from them? After the "epic" scope of "Gimme Shelter," "Midnight Rambler," and "You Can't Always Get What You Want," the songs on STICKY FINGERS became more introspective, more tortured, more decayed. That was OK. The songs were still good, even great. Then, with EXILE, they became miniaturists, the look inside became microscopic--you could feel the speed bumping through their veins, the night-sweats, every furtive look and paranoid backward glance. But, again, they had painted themselves into a bit of a corner: my god, where could they possibly go from there?

To GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, and BLACK AND BLUE. And it was over. Bam.

In my earlier post, I may have put too much importance on the role of GHS in their decline. Having had a front row seat, though, I can tell you that The Stones were being hounded on two fronts:

1) Rock fans going to Zeppelin, who were now the biggest band on the planet. I saw both The Stones and Zeppelin in June of 1972 and it was VERY clear who were the "hotter" band: LZ. The Stones weren't turning out world-shaking anthems anymore; their best EXILE song (and one of their best songs ever) was about a guy so beaten up and battered he only got off in his dreams. Meanwhile, Zeppelin was releasing "Rock and Roll," and "Black Dog," and "Stairway to Heaven," and "When the Levee Breaks." As good as "Ventilator Blues" is--and it is very good--it was clear who the average rock fan was now going to be turning to.

2) Cool kids going to Bowie. He wasn't a commercial threat but he had EVERYTHING Jagger wanted: he was the IT girl. Between the time EXILE came out and GHS was released, Bowie had taken Ziggy to the stars and retired him, having already moved on. The speed of pop life in the early 70's was something. When Mick came out prancing and glittered in the "Dancing With Mr. D" promo video he was no longer the androgynous apocalyptic omega uncle sam boy ... he had become a follower, a glam wanna-be, now over 30 and so so sad.

I don't know whether you should be happy on stage or mean on stage in order to produce great music. Most great live music I have heard--in any genre--in my life has been produced by people who were concentrating, experimenting, grasping for something greater than just notes on a page. I suppose you can do that with either a grin or a frown.

ALL great music comes from real inspiration: Pain, joy, triumph, sadness. I would say the well ran dry after Some Girls and then it was paint-by-numbers. An open-G riff here, a ballad there, still serviceable but no longer inspired. When inspiration leaves you, you rely on craft. They did have their craft down.

I am more forgiving than you about the post-69 period. I think they were on fire in '73, though Mr. H was much more of an influence. I think GHS is a near-masterpiece that has some of Mick Jagger's best lyric-writing. I also believe it was quite admirable that they found another burst of energy on Some Girls. After that, it was strictly formulaic, and then the live shows settled into a Greatest Hits Revue and cash-generator by '89, which is what we still have.

Great post LongBeachArena72. I believe every word of it. Great first person perspective.

The only thing I could add it that they did seem to find and capture something that was purely late 70's New York City and, in doing so, became somewhat relevant both musically and socially with the release of Some Girls. Maybe I'm overstating the importance of what it was in light of the truly cutting edge punk of those days, but it has held up well. Certainly a last gasp from my perspective, since TY and ER were both a disappointment to me. Bam as you say.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
LongBeachArena72
By as early as 1972 the wheels were coming off.

New guitarist in tow, they had found their way into a voodoo trance blues in Nov 69 that they would never top. You could hear it in their performances. Mick, never ever so vulnerable, so soulful, so angry again. Mick Taylor weaving dreams in "Love in Vain" and "I'm Free" and then he and Keith burning arenas to the ground in the "Street Fighting Man" finale. Bill so tight, and Charlie just hanging on for dear life (listen to him in the last minute or two of "Sympathy for the Devil" on GYYYO; that man is barely holding on!) but oh sooo good. Every note seemed to matter. The band had stepped into the void left by The Beatles and they were untouchably cool. A nation at the end of one of its most turbulent decades turned its eyes Stones-ward.

By 72 it had all changed. After Altamont, after Mick and Keith looking down the throat of the death-rattle of the free-love 60's and turning ... inward. Because where else could you turn after the craziness of that tour and that last festival--what did these people want from them? After the "epic" scope of "Gimme Shelter," "Midnight Rambler," and "You Can't Always Get What You Want," the songs on STICKY FINGERS became more introspective, more tortured, more decayed. That was OK. The songs were still good, even great. Then, with EXILE, they became miniaturists, the look inside became microscopic--you could feel the speed bumping through their veins, the night-sweats, every furtive look and paranoid backward glance. But, again, they had painted themselves into a bit of a corner: my god, where could they possibly go from there?

To GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, and BLACK AND BLUE. And it was over. Bam.

In my earlier post, I may have put too much importance on the role of GHS in their decline. Having had a front row seat, though, I can tell you that The Stones were being hounded on two fronts:

1) Rock fans going to Zeppelin, who were now the biggest band on the planet. I saw both The Stones and Zeppelin in June of 1972 and it was VERY clear who were the "hotter" band: LZ. The Stones weren't turning out world-shaking anthems anymore; their best EXILE song (and one of their best songs ever) was about a guy so beaten up and battered he only got off in his dreams. Meanwhile, Zeppelin was releasing "Rock and Roll," and "Black Dog," and "Stairway to Heaven," and "When the Levee Breaks." As good as "Ventilator Blues" is--and it is very good--it was clear who the average rock fan was now going to be turning to.

2) Cool kids going to Bowie. He wasn't a commercial threat but he had EVERYTHING Jagger wanted: he was the IT girl. Between the time EXILE came out and GHS was released, Bowie had taken Ziggy to the stars and retired him, having already moved on. The speed of pop life in the early 70's was something. When Mick came out prancing and glittered in the "Dancing With Mr. D" promo video he was no longer the androgynous apocalyptic omega uncle sam boy ... he had become a follower, a glam wanna-be, now over 30 and so so sad.

I don't know whether you should be happy on stage or mean on stage in order to produce great music. Most great live music I have heard--in any genre--in my life has been produced by people who were concentrating, experimenting, grasping for something greater than just notes on a page. I suppose you can do that with either a grin or a frown.

ALL great music comes from real inspiration: Pain, joy, triumph, sadness. I would say the well ran dry after Some Girls and then it was paint-by-numbers. An open-G riff here, a ballad there, still serviceable but no longer inspired. When inspiration leaves you, you rely on craft. They did have their craft down.

I am more forgiving than you about the post-69 period. I think they were on fire in '73, though Mr. H was much more of an influence. I think GHS is a near-masterpiece that has some of Mick Jagger's best lyric-writing. I also believe it was quite admirable that they found another burst of energy on Some Girls. After that, it was strictly formulaic, and then the live shows settled into a Greatest Hits Revue and cash-generator by '89, which is what we still have.

You are of course more accurate. I'm being hyperbolic by design in order to try to locate the larger arc The Stones traveled through time. The details you cite above are fairer to the band, and more reflective of the actual tracks on some of those records.

Quote
Naturalust
Great post LongBeachArena72. I believe every word of it. Great first person perspective.

The only thing I could add it that they did seem to find and capture something that was purely late 70's New York City and, in doing so, became somewhat relevant both musically and socially with the release of Some Girls. Maybe I'm overstating the importance of what it was in light of the truly cutting edge punk of those days, but it has held up well. Certainly a last gasp from my perspective, since TY and ER were both a disappointment to me. Bam as you say.

Like Tele, you are right, NL, and fairer to the band in this instance than I am. I think I've always discounted SOME GIRLS more than I should since the show I saw on that tour was so crappy. But I would agree that "Whip," the title song, "Just My Imagination," and "Beast of Burden," at the very least, are not only top-flight Stones but also probably helped make them as "relevant" as they had been in a long time.

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
kleermaker
Regarding to those who reacted on my 'fun' post:

Is it me being so smart or you being so stupid?

From your point of view, I'd be willing to bet the answer is "Both".

From my point of view, I hope you don't hurt your arm while trying to pat yourself on the back.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I mean that seemingly no one gets my point. It must be too difficult. And I'm not willing to explain it. Think for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

Well, one little illustration. Imagine you go to a classical concert - and of course enjoying the music is a form of having fun (even while you stay sitting on your chair, don't dance or drink too much beer) - and the conductor and his orchestra have tons of fun, slamming each other on their shoulders, laughing to the audience, waving their violins, flutes or whatever instrument and playing lousy. Well, do you say then afterwards: Priceless? I guess not.

O well, classical music is all about seriousness and jazz, rock, blues etc. all about fun. We go to those shows to see the musicians having a good time, putting the music on the second or third place at best. We have fun if they have fun.

But I had 'fun' when I went to the Stones in 1973 and they played as good as they could, without playing air guitar, smoking, hugging during the concert and all those kinds of clownesque things. But you people just go to those shows to see all those things happen.

You should have stopped at "I'm not willing to explain it" as your attempt to insult me and the rest of "you people" was pretty much time wasted as it really didn't make me (or I imagine anyone else) feel inferior to you. Unless it made you feel superior, then I guess it was at least half effective.

Enjoy your bootlegs!

No disrespect to Kleer.. OR to those that responded, but it WAS a humorous post in its own way. I think *some* people actually might go to a show these days almost exclusively to see those things he cites. More power to them I suppose..some of those things are charming in their own way, but a little bit has certainly gone a long way, from my perspective. "Thick as thieves"? Really? It would be nice to think so...but I don't care (much) at this point. A few new songs from the studio might be welcome.

Good 'ole Charlie. Said nobody listens to him but that he thought MT should come on the current tour! I guess it was discussed at a band meeting, oh to be a fly on the wall for that one. (Mojo article on the Connections thread)

Charlie: Yes, I think we should bring him, eewas great on the last tour and I really enjoyed 'aving him around.

Mick: No guys, I've heard he isn't well and playing Sticky Fingers songs might remind him we quit paying him for all those record. This could really open up a can of worms.

Keith: Whatever you say Mick, you're gonna tell him right? I guess you're going to have to show me how Moonlight Mile goes again though.

Ronnie: Yeah it's a lot easier just playing with Keith anyway.

Really appreciate LongBeachArena72's posts. Very thoughtful and wide-ranging.

Quote
Naturalust
Good 'ole Charlie. Said nobody listens to him but that he thought MT should come on the current tour! I guess it was discussed at a band meeting, oh to be a fly on the wall for that one. (Mojo article on the Connections thread)

And Taylor hasn't got a clue. Smart guy.

Quote
SweetThing

No disrespect to Kleer.. OR to those that responded, but it WAS a humorous post in its own way.

It was also meant that way, so you read it well, ST.

Quote
Naturalust
Good 'ole Charlie. Said nobody listens to him but that he thought MT should come on the current tour! I guess it was discussed at a band meeting, oh to be a fly on the wall for that one. (Mojo article on the Connections thread)

Charlie: Yes, I think we should bring him, eewas great on the last tour and I really enjoyed 'aving him around.

Mick: No guys, I've heard he isn't well and playing Sticky Fingers songs might remind him we quit paying him for all those record. This could really open up a can of worms.

Keith: Whatever you say Mick, you're gonna tell him right? I guess you're going to have to show me how Moonlight Mile goes again though.

Ronnie: Yeah it's a lot easier just playing with Keith anyway.

That just makes me sad. If Taylor were to play though, I prefer his statuesque nature, executing precision amongst the chaos.

Quote
TravelinMan

If Taylor were to play though, I prefer his statuesque nature, executing precision amongst the chaos.

Yeah well said! That was part of the magic of his appeal, the silent warrior slaying us from stage right. I and others have expressed a bit of discomfort at watching him jump about on the last tour. Perhaps he was just coming out of his shell a bit, maybe he was told to be more animated in order to entertain such large crowds, maybe he was responding to some harsh Keith criticism of old or just trying to fit in more, but whatever the reason it seemed out of character somewhat.

The current tour is obviously going well but I must admit it's losing a bit of it's shine for me, especially with only 3 out of 10 Sticky Fingers tunes played per night after such a hype of the record. There is no doubt in my mind that having Taylor up there would have been a huge boon to the music and kept things exciting in way that is somehow missing now. Just the little parts he could add to the warhorses would have kept me on the edge of my seat. There were moments during last nights show where I pined for his touch, perhaps a bit of appropriate Motown type lead in Just My Imagination.

"Everything new. I hope you don't mind us doing things that are new. But we tend to groove on the new things just a little bit, y'know."
--Mick Jagger, 9 Nov 1969

Was listening to a boot last night of the 2nd show from Oakland on 9 Nov 69 (the show memorialized on LIVE'r THAN YOU'LL EVER BE) and came across the lines above from Mick in some between-song banter. Had never noticed them before and they got me thinking about how truly radical the '69 setlist was. That night the band played:

Jumpin Jack Flash
Carol
Sympathy for the Devil
Stray Cat Blues
Prodigal Son
You Gotta Move
Love in Vain
I'm Free
Under My Thumb
Midnight Rambler
Live With Me
Gimme Shelter
Little Queenie
Satsifaction
Honky Tonk Women
Street Fighting Man

There are several remarkable things about this list:

--at least 12 of the 16 songs had NEVER been played in the US before (13, if you count "Little Queenie;" I honestly don't know whether they had ever played LQ in the US before)
--5 of the 16 songs had NOT EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET (4 from the upcoming LET IT BLEED, and 1 that would not appear until STICKY FINGERS)
--11 of the 16 songs were newer than 18 months old
--there was a set of 3 consecutive sloooooow blues, followed by two dreamy mid-tempo rockers; 5 consecutive songs, in other words, in which the audience were being tacitly encouraged by the band to sit and listen

All of this takes bravado, bespeaks a band at the peak of its confidence in what they are doing. They could have played, but didn't:

Time is on My Side
The Last Time
Get Off My Cloud
19th Nervous Breakdown
Paint It Black
Mother's Little Helper
Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby
Let's Spend the Night Together
Ruby Tuesday

All of which were top-10 singles in the U.S.

Instead, they turned their new guitarist loose on a bevy of furious new end-of-the-decade songs and some swampy blues and Berry covers and wove a phantasmagoric spell across the nation in the dead of winter. It was really a quite remarkable choice of songs, when you think about it, and showed a commitment to new material that, while not uncommon at the time, seems positively shocking today.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
TravelinMan

If Taylor were to play though, I prefer his statuesque nature, executing precision amongst the chaos.

Yeah well said! That was part of the magic of his appeal, the silent warrior slaying us from stage right. I and others have expressed a bit of discomfort at watching him jump about on the last tour. Perhaps he was just coming out of his shell a bit, maybe he was told to be more animated in order to entertain such large crowds, maybe he was responding to some harsh Keith criticism of old or just trying to fit in more, but whatever the reason it seemed out of character somewhat.

The current tour is obviously going well but I must admit it's losing a bit of it's shine for me, especially with only 3 out of 10 Sticky Fingers tunes played per night after such a hype of the record. There is no doubt in my mind that having Taylor up there would have been a huge boon to the music and kept things exciting in way that is somehow missing now. Just the little parts he could add to the warhorses would have kept me on the edge of my seat. There were moments during last nights show where I pined for his touch, perhaps a bit of appropriate Motown type lead in Just My Imagination.

Just watched JMI from Detroit last night. It's hard to judge based on YouTube sound but it seemed ... thin. Jagger was actually pretty good on it, I thought, and Chuck as usual awful, but the guitars lacked that propulsive chug-chug-chugging that used to make that song such a delight. Plus, as you say, there was something lacking in the lead gtr dept, not much happening there to help make the song take off.

1969-70-71 was the band at its height in my opinion, great post about the set list LongBeach.

I'm sure you've read Stanley Booth but his descriptions of some of the choices and how the band felt about them and how they were received are really cool. he focused a lot on I'm Free, which truly was an audacious choice since it was neither a hit nor new. amazing that they passed over all the hits you listed, but then threw in "i'm free"!

it would be like going out in 1981 and playing nothing off of Some Girls except "Far Away Eyes".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-09 20:33 by Turner68.

Quote
LongBeachArena72
By as early as 1972 the wheels were coming off.

New guitarist in tow, they had found their way into a voodoo trance blues in Nov 69 that they would never top. You could hear it in their performances. Mick, never ever so vulnerable, so soulful, so angry again. Mick Taylor weaving dreams in "Love in Vain" and "I'm Free" and then he and Keith burning arenas to the ground in the "Street Fighting Man" finale. Bill so tight, and Charlie just hanging on for dear life (listen to him in the last minute or two of "Sympathy for the Devil" on GYYYO; that man is barely holding on!) but oh sooo good. Every note seemed to matter. The band had stepped into the void left by The Beatles and they were untouchably cool. A nation at the end of one of its most turbulent decades turned its eyes Stones-ward.

By 72 it had all changed. After Altamont, after Mick and Keith looking down the throat of the death-rattle of the free-love 60's and turning ... inward. Because where else could you turn after the craziness of that tour and that last festival--what did these people want from them? After the "epic" scope of "Gimme Shelter," "Midnight Rambler," and "You Can't Always Get What You Want," the songs on STICKY FINGERS became more introspective, more tortured, more decayed. That was OK. The songs were still good, even great. Then, with EXILE, they became miniaturists, the look inside became microscopic--you could feel the speed bumping through their veins, the night-sweats, every furtive look and paranoid backward glance. But, again, they had painted themselves into a bit of a corner: my god, where could they possibly go from there?

To GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, and BLACK AND BLUE. And it was over. Bam.

In my earlier post, I may have put too much importance on the role of GHS in their decline. Having had a front row seat, though, I can tell you that The Stones were being hounded on two fronts:

1) Rock fans going to Zeppelin, who were now the biggest band on the planet. I saw both The Stones and Zeppelin in June of 1972 and it was VERY clear who were the "hotter" band: LZ. The Stones weren't turning out world-shaking anthems anymore; their best EXILE song (and one of their best songs ever) was about a guy so beaten up and battered he only got off in his dreams. Meanwhile, Zeppelin was releasing "Rock and Roll," and "Black Dog," and "Stairway to Heaven," and "When the Levee Breaks." As good as "Ventilator Blues" is--and it is very good--it was clear who the average rock fan was now going to be turning to.

2) Cool kids going to Bowie. He wasn't a commercial threat but he had EVERYTHING Jagger wanted: he was the IT girl. Between the time EXILE came out and GHS was released, Bowie had taken Ziggy to the stars and retired him, having already moved on. The speed of pop life in the early 70's was something. When Mick came out prancing and glittered in the "Dancing With Mr. D" promo video he was no longer the androgynous apocalyptic omega uncle sam boy ... he had become a follower, a glam wanna-be, now over 30 and so so sad.

I don't know whether you should be happy on stage or mean on stage in order to produce great music. Most great live music I have heard--in any genre--in my life has been produced by people who were concentrating, experimenting, grasping for something greater than just notes on a page. I suppose you can do that with either a grin or a frown.

What a bunch of nonsense. OMG

GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, and BLACK AND BLUE. And it was over.

Um, doh, only three of their best albums. To be followed by classics in the form of SG and TY

Quote
Turner68
1969-70-71 was the band at its height in my opinion, great post about the set list LongBeach.

I'm sure you've read Stanley Booth but his descriptions of some of the choices and how the band felt about them and how they were received are really cool. he focused a lot on I'm Free, which truly was an audacious choice since it was neither a hit nor new. amazing that they passed over all the hits you listed, but then threw in "i'm free"!

it would be like going out in 1981 and playing nothing off of Some Girls except "Far Away Eyes".

It was a fascinating choice, wasn't it? A nice little tune in the studio, but what they were able to do with it with Taylor was remarkable.

I only read Stanley Booth's book for the first time a few months ago; definitely now my favorite Stones-related tome.

Quote
Stones50
GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, and BLACK AND BLUE. And it was over.

Um, doh, only three of their best albums. To be followed by classics in the form of SG and TY

Well will you at least admit it was somewhat over after TY?

I think the poster you are commenting on has addressed his posts in a bit more detail. And considering TY was mostly compiled from older material it is pretty accurate to say SG was the last gasp, imo.

I think the real proof of the matter can be put into perspective by looking at the Stones current choice of songs to play live. They are acutely aware of their best material and have been exploiting it since 1989. It is what it is, and LongBeachArena72's post was one of the most thoughtful and interesting post's I've read here in a while.

Getting Sticky Fingers superdeluxe today (at last) got me thinking about the Clapton version of Brown Sugar. I know it's been discussed here a bunch of times, so apologies for the repetition, but did we ever decide who exactly is playing what? As memory serves, the previous threads didn't really settle this. To my ears, the slide is clearly Taylor, and the solo after the sax part is Clapton - the two guitars sound different tonally, I have never heard Clapton switch from slide to regular playing like that (other than on the live versions of Tell The Truth), and the slide licks are the same ones Taylor always does, not least on the Brussels Affair version a few years later. Am I wrong?

Quote
Stones50
GOATS HEAD SOUP, IORR, and BLACK AND BLUE. And it was over.

Um, doh, only three of their best albums. To be followed by classics in the form of SG and TY

I don't think Black % Blue is anything close to one of their great albums.

Quote
Stoneburst
Getting Sticky Fingers superdeluxe today (at last) got me thinking about the Clapton version of Brown Sugar. I know it's been discussed here a bunch of times, so apologies for the repetition, but did we ever decide who exactly is playing what? As memory serves, the previous threads didn't really settle this. To my ears, the slide is clearly Taylor, and the solo after the sax part is Clapton - the two guitars sound different tonally, I have never heard Clapton switch from slide to regular playing like that (other than on the live versions of Tell The Truth), and the slide licks are the same ones Taylor always does, not least on the Brussels Affair version a few years later. Am I wrong?

That was my interpretation as well. Why do people assume the slide is Clapton?

I assume because it's clearly a Strat into a Fender combo of some sort, so period correct for Clapton. But it doesn't sound like it's him playing - Clapton nearly always used open tunings for slide, for starters. My guess is that it was done spontaneously, with Taylor using borrowed gear, and that the confusion arises from that.

This thread marches on. Great read on this page. Exile begins the decline by being untoppable. Same for Layla and Clapton I guess. GHS, IORR, B&B and even SG's sounds dated today with effects over the top.
Beggers to Exile are timeless. So yeah they paniced a trifle as classic rock evolved and then stalled forever allowing them to be the greatest oldies show on earth for 30 years.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
kleermaker
Regarding to those who reacted on my 'fun' post:

Is it me being so smart or you being so stupid?

From your point of view, I'd be willing to bet the answer is "Both".

From my point of view, I hope you don't hurt your arm while trying to pat yourself on the back.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I mean that seemingly no one gets my point. It must be too difficult. And I'm not willing to explain it. Think for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

Well, one little illustration. Imagine you go to a classical concert - and of course enjoying the music is a form of having fun (even while you stay sitting on your chair, don't dance or drink too much beer) - and the conductor and his orchestra have tons of fun, slamming each other on their shoulders, laughing to the audience, waving their violins, flutes or whatever instrument and playing lousy. Well, do you say then afterwards: Priceless? I guess not.

O well, classical music is all about seriousness and jazz, rock, blues etc. all about fun. We go to those shows to see the musicians having a good time, putting the music on the second or third place at best. We have fun if they have fun.

But I had 'fun' when I went to the Stones in 1973 and they played as good as they could, without playing air guitar, smoking, hugging during the concert and all those kinds of clownesque things. But you people just go to those shows to see all those things happen.

you are spot on. I listen to those boots and they are one of many soundtracks of my life. The Vegas era stones are not, they dont fool my mind into thinking. Edit: dreaming. And thinking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-10 13:34 by Redhotcarpet.