Quote
dcba

Quote
stanlove
Easily..

To me the whole 78 trek was a messy (somewhat unpleasant) blueprint for the superb glorious 1981 tour. The band sounded harsh and this version is no exception.

WE couldn't disagree more. 81 was the worst tour they ever did. I saw them live and it was backed up by other videos I have seen. You can ever seen the disappointment in the crowd most times.

Quote
Stanlove
WE couldn't disagree more. 81 was the worst tour they ever did. I saw them live and it was backed up by other videos I have seen. You can ever seen the disappointment in the crowd most times

The start of the tour was possibly a bit messy but the Hampton concert (from the vault) is one of the best concerts they've ever done.Fantastic

Far better than the "all-in Vegas" in 1989.

don't care, love some girls so much song at this period (so Young claudine, love you too much ...etc) ... but we got Shattered on the LP !!

Quote
stanlove

WE couldn't disagree more. 81 was the worst tour they ever did. I saw them live and it was backed up by other videos I have seen. You can ever seen the disappointment in the crowd most times.

I respect your opinion but not so long ago (20-25 years ago?) you were considered as "having a problem" when you declared yourself a "1978 tour lover".
The tour was a shameful secret, a live venture by a band still recovering from the Toronto trial fans were eager to forget. The boots from Cleveland and Philie didn't help...

And now 1978 is the Holy Grail and 81 sucks (82 isn't even mentioned). The time they're-a-changing!

Quote
dcba

Quote
stanlove

WE couldn't disagree more. 81 was the worst tour they ever did. I saw them live and it was backed up by other videos I have seen. You can ever seen the disappointment in the crowd most times.

I respect your opinion but not so long ago (20-25 years ago?) you were considered as "having a problem" when you declared yourself a "1978 tour lover".
The tour was a shameful secret, a live venture by a band still recovering from the Toronto trial fans were eager to forget. The boots from Cleveland and Philie didn't help...

And now 1978 is the Holy Grail and 81 sucks (82 isn't even mentioned). The time they're-a-changing!

Both tours were great. The Stones were unrehearsed in the beginning of both of them

The Handsome Girls shows have always been great, and they have been available for decades..

Stupid, childish tune.

Quote
RobertJohnson

Quote
Swayed1967

Quote
More Hot Rocks
There isn't any

The vast majority of Jagger’s live vocal performances are bad, embarrassingly bad, when compared to the studio versions but as a young man the bootleg shows were magic to me. But the magic didn’t last, at least not for their live performances. In other words, I’ve heard enough. I don’t understand why long-time fans who have heard Brussels, Hampton, all the bootlegs etc. countless times feel the need to revisit them. The studio recordings are far superior. Now I can understand watching Ladies and Gentlemen or CS Blues or even the horrendous version of Shattered on Saturday Nite Live because the performances of that era are riveting but I would never think of merely ‘listening’ to a Rolling Stones concert these days.

Okay, the growling, howling, barking vocals from 73-76 are a matter of taste. Meanwhile I appreciate it. But for example the live vocals on Leeds 71, Roundhouse and Marquee are an unique manifestation of one of the best Rock and Blues singers I know. No studio album matches that.

I can't agree with that although you’re wise to focus on the late sixties/early seventies era because that's when he's at his most compelling as a vocalist, still cocksure enough to think that he could compete with his own studio voice. But he can’t really (with a few exceptions). He gives ‘I Got The Blues’ an admirable go at the Marquee but what’s interesting there is that his delivery remains almost too true to the album version and hence, as strong as his performance is, he inevitably comes up a little short. However, on those rare occasions when he slightly reinterprets the studio version and actually sings well such as on various versions of Rambler and Love in Vain, the results do arguably surpass the album version. But again those are extremely rare cases and rather boring songs. And again I cannot emphasize enough how important the visual element is. As fine-tuned as some of the early live versions of Midnight Rambler are, I’m not interested unless I can actually watch Jagger become possessed by the Boston Strangler.

As for the barking and Vegas eras, they really don’t even merit discussion. Which isn’t to say that I think they should pack it in. Were they to play in my part of the world I’d love to go to the concert, just as I did in 2006 when they played in Saitama. They were in terrific form that night (numerous posters on this forum have pointed to Saitama as one of the highlights of that tour) and I’m grateful because it became a very special night for my wife and I. But even though I naturally bought the CD/DVD set for that concert I don’t think I’ve ever listened to it in its entirety. It was a special night, the boys were on fire, but the reality is the studio versions of those songs are just vastly superior. I don’t understand how so many people come to a different conclusion.

Texas '78 version I really like. The best version may have been the aborted version in philly in '89. It sounded great until a generator blew and cut off the last ten seconds of the song. I was there that night but check out a boot to that show.

Quote
Swayed1967
The vast majority of Jagger’s live vocal performances are bad, embarrassingly bad, when compared to the studio versions

No, MJ is adding passion, energy and feeling when singing live. The studio versions become really "alive". That´s what the Stones (and Rock n Roll in general) are about, to bring their music "alive" when playing onstage. Sometimes the playing and singing is imperfect but the music is "alive". It breathes. Nothing is more boring than a band reproducing 1:1 their studio recordings onstage. The Stones never did that and that is what made them so exciting.

i love the 78-versions with that rough vocals.
hate 81-82 and yes, i think, the still live - hampton version is boring.
the shine-a-light-version is not bad, is it?
it´s interesting, how different are the meanings about that song...

Quote
deardoctor

it´s interesting, how different are the meanings about that song...

Yeah one of the most poignant one is about the "What a mess this town's in tatters" when the song was played in discos or during parties in NYC after 9/11...

Quote
HMS

Quote
Swayed1967
The vast majority of Jagger’s live vocal performances are bad, embarrassingly bad, when compared to the studio versions

No, MJ is adding passion, energy and feeling when singing live. The studio versions become really "alive". That´s what the Stones (and Rock n Roll in general) are about, to bring their music "alive" when playing onstage. Sometimes the playing and singing is imperfect but the music is "alive". It breathes. Nothing is more boring than a band reproducing 1:1 their studio recordings onstage. The Stones never did that and that is what made them so exciting.

Thank you for that educational post. I shall remind myself how the music ‘breathes’ the next time I hear a cringeworthy version of It’s Only Rock ‘N Roll or Sway.

Sarcasm aside, if you had assiduously read my previous post on this thread on August 12, 2015 06:03, as you should have, you would have discovered that we are more or less in agreement and that your lecture was unnecessary. (To paraphrase my previous post on August 12, 2015 06:03: I praised MJ for ‘breathing life’ into boring songs like Midnight Rambler and Love in Vain through his mesmerizing stage presence and strong vocals. However, I maintained that these are exceptions.)

Quote
Swayed1967 on August 12, 2015 06:03
I can't agree with that although you’re wise to focus on the late sixties/early seventies era because that's when he's at his most compelling as a vocalist, still cocksure enough to think that he could compete with his own studio voice. But he can’t really (with a few exceptions). He gives ‘I Got The Blues’ an admirable go at the Marquee but what’s interesting there is that his delivery remains almost too true to the album version and hence, as strong as his performance is, he inevitably comes up a little short. However, on those rare occasions when he slightly reinterprets the studio version and actually sings well such as on various versions of Rambler and Love in Vain, the results do arguably surpass the album version. But again those are extremely rare cases and rather boring songs. And again I cannot emphasize enough how important the visual element is. As fine-tuned as some of the early live versions of Midnight Rambler are, I’m not interested unless I can actually watch Jagger become possessed by the Boston Strangler.

For a Vegas era rendition, I have fond memories of hearing a great version played at the Skydome in Toronto in 2002.
I'm not sure if a boot exists of that show or not, but Mick spat out "shattered" with real attitude that night, instead of the lazy "shabber shabber" delivery that has marred many versions for me.

For classic era, I'm partial to '78 over '81/'82 in general when it comes to live versions of Shattered.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-13 14:00 by andrewt.

Texas 78 indeed! Charlie is amazing! Mick's greatest performance of the song, better than the studio version. In general, 1978 is better, more fresh and energetic than 1981 or 82. I'd say all songs played in 78 also played in 81/82 were better performed in 1978. And Shattered is a great example! Ronny much more together. Mick singing much better, less running around. Charlie much much better. I am talking about the best shows from each of the tours. I am sure some 81 shows are over and above some of the not so good 78 shows.

Texas '78...by a mile!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Hampton is perfection for me.

One of their several peaks in their career.

VOODOO tour.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
bitusa2012
There is no such thing! Seriously, I cannot see what anyone sees/hears in this track. A monotonous dirge. To each their own, but to me this is one of The Stones worst ever releases!

Rhythm, groove, a cool sound and observant lyrics?

Not to mention that a lot of ones of one of the worst Stones releases ever are Streets Of Love, Sweet Neo Con, Following The River, Winning Ugly, Back To Zero, DIRTY WORK in general and Rock And A Hard Place.

Quote
GasLightStreet
VOODOO tour.

Washington I, 1994. I was there.
very fast version. "Not bad for a bunch of old farts!"

I love the version on SPARKS WILL FLY from the...one of the Giants Stadium shows they did in 1994. August 14th I think. Killer version.

The one on SHINE A LIGHT is OK but Ronnie totally bails on playing the lead in the bridge. Everything else is too fast. I like the slow lumbering version from 1994.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-28 21:13 by GasLightStreet.

Well here's the video from that show that the bootleg is of. The video is from the video that was sold on the tour I believe.



SHATTERED video: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
HMS

Quote
bitusa2012
There is no such thing! Seriously, I cannot see what anyone sees/hears in this track. A monotonous dirge. To each their own, but to me this is one of The Stones worst ever releases!

I absolutely agree

I'm with you guys here. That 2 chord groove belongs in a DEVO song not the Stones. A low point in their creativity.

Quote
RockinJive
Stupid, childish tune.

Yes and I love it. One of their best.

Best live Shattered IMHO is from the King Biscuit Flower Hour. It was used in the 1978 and 1981 broadcasts. There a little feedback in the middle part.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Well here's the video from that show that the bootleg is of. The video is from the video that was sold on the tour I believe.



SHATTERED video: [www.youtube.com]

Got this video at my first concert and this version of shattered came to my mind when I saw this thread. One hell of a version from one of the best concerts on video. Much better than Miami or Tokyo from the same tour.

I'm torn between the fast Hampton version and the slower, but groovier Detroit 1978 version. Both are great.

The 1994 versions were too much dominated by the backing vocalists, and Mick lost his edge attitude-wise, imo. It's good anyway.

I'm partial to the 1978 and 1981 versions. I saw them do it in 2005 and it didn't have the same edge. The versions on SGLIT and Still Life are my choices!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-03 19:49 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Not an especially effective live tune, but the LP version is sublime. Very different, and yet it caught that punky zeitgeist dead on. One of their most unique cuts.

Shattered-Best live version - this is an oxymoron.

There is no good live version of this superb studio cut.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Shattered-Best live version - this is an oxymoron.

There is no good live version of this superb studio cut.

It is a brilliant studio cut but I like the sloppy, punky energy of the live versions from 78 and 81. In later years they tried too hard to recreate the studio version on stage and I wasn't too thrilled with the results. I usually like the raw feel of live music but some songs have a vibe that's hard to translate from the studio to the stage. Gimme Shelter is one where that menacing, sinister vibe from the studio version can disappear in the live versions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-03 20:29 by HonkeyTonkFlash.