My opinion of the 1975 Tour is largely one of great promise that turned to failure. When the tour started in Baton Rouge they were energetic and carried on a performance that rivaled their 1973 tour (with early show mistakes). The songs were high octane. Mick sang well and the band was playing hard and fast. This carried on early in the tour as you can hear in the songs from Toronto in mid June as you can hear on It's Only Rock and Roll and Fingerprint File on LYL as well as the entire Toronto show bootleg. The NYC shows are still closer to this level as well. By the time they get to LA the performances have slowed down, the band has lost almost all of the energy they showed early in the tour and Mick has become sloppy and lazy. The 1972 Tour only got better as the tour wore on. The 1973 tour arguably got better as well. What happened to make the 1975 go so awry? Drugs, alcohol, the mood of 1975?

I personally like the Frankfurt and Paris energy and also El Mocambo. So I guess it got better in a way. But sure - there were tons of drugs.

Interesting points YITM! I am reading Paolo Hewitt's book "Forever The People" about Oasis' Be Here Now tour 97-98 and it's really interesting to see how the tour life affects a band consisting of people who are married and/or have families. The everday drinking and the peruvian marching powder and on top of that cigarettes and mayhem.

In 72 and 73 I guess they were not as affected and the schedule of that Exile/GHS tour was pretty good planned as it included long breaks. 2 years on and they are 31 going on 32 (Mick and Keith) and family becomes even more important. I got the 1975 tour programme sent to me in 1999 from my uncle who is american and lived in Lousiana in 1975 and the first thing that struck me was the vast schedule. Big tour even without the cancelled South American dates.

I am often thinking about that night on Paris, 6th of july 1976 when Keith got the news about little Tara. It breaks my heart. It must've been awful, I am so grateful that Marlon was there with him.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-28 19:31 by MadMax.

Quote
yearsinthemaking
The 1972 Tour only got better as the tour wore on. The 1973 tour arguably got better as well. What happened to make the 1975 go so awry? Drugs, alcohol, the mood of 1975?

Mick admitted the true "off-stage" decadence happened in 75 not in 72...
And I share your opinion : the tour started with a bang (proof that - unlike 72 - they were well-rehearsed from the start) and gradually went... duller? Pro?

Maybe they were a bit tired of playing 2,5hrs at every show? Take a mid-tour stop like Largo :the 1st night was very strong, the 2nd one not so much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-28 19:51 by dcba.

Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

The entire June 17th Toronto show was great and it was only 11 nights into the tour. Other than NYC I'm not overly familiar with the mid tour shows before the LA shows. When did things change? Mick was clearly not himself later on singing stupid lyrics like "don't want no Jews hanging round" on Tumbling Dice and just sloppy uninteresting singing. Maybe his drug of choice was to blame

Mick chased the dragon a little too often?

Stones 75 ... The Roman Orgy Tour



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Stones 75 ... The Roman Orgy Tour

What do you mean.?

I definitely think drugs had a lot to do with it. I also think they were getting a bit above over their head as far as popularity was concerned. By that point, they weren't bringing anything new to the table anymore. I think the term 'aging rock stars' was the term I read. Other acts were beating them out. Punk and disco were taking over.

It couldn't have helped much that they had a new guitar player w/Ronnie learning to fit in. What started out as exciting and fresh, eventually turned to the reality that things are far from what they once were.
Not only could it have had a negative impact on the rest of the band, but fans that had seen them previously when the band was at their peak, and who were seeing them again in '75, might have also been a bit shocked at the inferior sound of the band. Surely that type of vibe could suck the initial high spirits out of the tour and other band members, and slowly but surely they began running out of steam.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-29 03:32 by Hairball.

I saw all the NYC shows from various sections and they were already going auto-pilot. I could pretty much tell exactly what was coming at various points in the shows. I personally found the Billy Preston/Mick tour de force a complete buzzkill. Likewise Mick fighting the giant, confetti spewing, inflatable phallus. Still, great shows. Best opening I've ever seen.

Quote
cimaz
Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. I’ve really only listened to the Brussels shows’, so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on. I understand Taylor’s noodling was becoming an issue at times.

Quote
Big Al

Quote
cimaz
Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. I’ve really only listened to the Brussels shows’, so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on. I understand Taylor’s noodling was becoming an issue at times.

Personally, I think they were very even in '73. Can't really think of any really sloppy or boring shows. The earliest shows weren't on the same level as Brussels of course, but they got going pretty quickly. There's one boot from Essen (I think) where Mick sings very sloppy, shortening the words in an annoying way. Other than that, I can't think of one bad show really.

Quote
LieB

Quote
Big Al

Quote
cimaz
Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. I’ve really only listened to the Brussels shows’, so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on. I understand Taylor’s noodling was becoming an issue at times.

Personally, I think they were very even in '73. Can't really think of any really sloppy or boring shows. The earliest shows weren't on the same level as Brussels of course, but they got going pretty quickly. There's one boot from Essen (I think) where Mick sings very sloppy, shortening the words in an annoying way. Other than that, I can't think of one bad show really.

They were never bad in -72 or -73. Sloppy in -73 means Taylor, to some, played too many awesome notes on a song. Keith maybe rocked a little too fast (according to some fans perhaps) and Jagger slurred (in a good way if you ask me).

That said, Im a fan of the -75 and -76 eras. But of course the Stones never came even close to the majestic -73 or -72 again. Ever.

Quote
Big Al


I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on.

The Manchester I tape is rather tedious imo... and it's well-recorded!

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
LieB

Quote
Big Al

Quote
cimaz
Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. I’ve really only listened to the Brussels shows’, so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on. I understand Taylor’s noodling was becoming an issue at times.

Personally, I think they were very even in '73. Can't really think of any really sloppy or boring shows. The earliest shows weren't on the same level as Brussels of course, but they got going pretty quickly. There's one boot from Essen (I think) where Mick sings very sloppy, shortening the words in an annoying way. Other than that, I can't think of one bad show really.

They were never bad in -72 or -73. Sloppy in -73 means Taylor, to some, played too many awesome notes on a song. Keith maybe rocked a little too fast (according to some fans perhaps) and Jagger slurred (in a good way if you ask me).

That said, Im a fan of the -75 and -76 eras. But of course the Stones never came even close to the majestic -73 or -72 again. Ever.

The Austria, Switzerland and first German shows aren't very good in my opinion. The shows drag a bit, very slow and heavy, and Taylor is overplaying and sounds bored. The heavy rock sound of these shows sound outdated for 1973.

Mathijs

I always loved the 1975tour .It is sloppy but has great energy.Keith ,Charlie and Bill are in top form.On some songs Ronnie is really good but some he is not like Street Fighting Man , Midnight Rambler and You Can’t Always Get What You want.What I don’t like is Ollie Brown’s percussion.It’s annoying and doesn’t fit with the sound of the band.The 1972 and1973 tours may be the best but the recordings are mostly inferior to the 1975 bootlegs.It s hard to say how good some of the Europe 1973 shows are because they are so poorly recorded.1973 Berlin’s a great show but horribly recorded.On a rerelease I would mix out Brown.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-29 13:22 by Taylor1.

I agree with the Ollie Brown percussion nonsense. It's totally unnecessary and I think sometimes it's a distraction for Charlie. Was he just there to be Billy Preston's companion for the tour. IFor that matter Billy Preston becomes more a musical liability as well. In 1973 I think he was more professional and played more to the Stones needs and can even be an interesting change from Nicky. In 1975 he just gets silly like how he will doodle around with the keys on Get Off of My Cloud

Yes , the Stones were breaking in a new guitarist but I still think they were firing on all cylinders delivering the goods as they always do . Just with a different guitarist . The debauchery is well documented , at the end of the day it's still the Rolling Stones . I love the official released LA show and Love the Paris 76 show as well .

Quote
Taylor1
I always loved the 1975tour .It is sloppy but has great energy.Keith ,Charlie and Bill are in top form.On some songs Ronnie is really good but some he is not like Street Fighting Man , Midnight Rambler and You Can’t Always Get What You want.What I don’t like is Ollie Brown’s percussion.It’s annoying and doesn’t fit with the sound of the band.The 1972 and1973 tours may be the best but the recordings are mostly inferior to the 1975 bootlegs.It s hard to say how good some of the Europe 1973 shows are because they are so poorly recorded.1973 Berlin’s a great show but horribly recorded.On a rerelease I would mix out Brown.

I find the added percussion fantastic. It really lifts the music with added swing and groove, and I find it propelled Charlie to experiment more, to be much more the jazz drummer he is.

Mathijs

In 1975 and 1976 the Stones went into some kind of useless Barnum on stage. Even if some shows of this era (NY and LA but not all of them) are still a pleasure to listen to. After The 1973 european Tour you had to wait until the 1978 US tour before they went back to something shorter, raw and essential.

Seattle 18th July is a great show from this tour.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
LieB

Quote
Big Al

Quote
cimaz
Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. I’ve really only listened to the Brussels shows’, so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on. I understand Taylor’s noodling was becoming an issue at times.

Personally, I think they were very even in '73. Can't really think of any really sloppy or boring shows. The earliest shows weren't on the same level as Brussels of course, but they got going pretty quickly. There's one boot from Essen (I think) where Mick sings very sloppy, shortening the words in an annoying way. Other than that, I can't think of one bad show really.

They were never bad in -72 or -73. Sloppy in -73 means Taylor, to some, played too many awesome notes on a song. Keith maybe rocked a little too fast (according to some fans perhaps) and Jagger slurred (in a good way if you ask me).

That said, Im a fan of the -75 and -76 eras. But of course the Stones never came even close to the majestic -73 or -72 again. Ever.

The Austria, Switzerland and first German shows aren't very good in my opinion. The shows drag a bit, very slow and heavy, and Taylor is overplaying and sounds bored. The heavy rock sound of these shows sound outdated for 1973.

Mathijs

The Frankfurt shows were very good!

Brussels and Berlin of course

Quote
Valeswood
Seattle 18th July is a great show from this tour.

"Seattle has seen multiple releases over the past couple of years because, in the words of one collector, “it is one of the absolute best shows we can find from this tour (maybe one of the best ever). Right from the start the show is a total explosion and almost every song is played with a breathtaking intensity.” He is correct in pointing out the intensity of the show."
[www.collectorsmusicreviews.com]

Dylan is watching through a binocular at MSG. Whtat happened?

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
LieB

Quote
Big Al

Quote
cimaz
Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. I’ve really only listened to the Brussels shows’, so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on. I understand Taylor’s noodling was becoming an issue at times.

Personally, I think they were very even in '73. Can't really think of any really sloppy or boring shows. The earliest shows weren't on the same level as Brussels of course, but they got going pretty quickly. There's one boot from Essen (I think) where Mick sings very sloppy, shortening the words in an annoying way. Other than that, I can't think of one bad show really.

They were never bad in -72 or -73. Sloppy in -73 means Taylor, to some, played too many awesome notes on a song. Keith maybe rocked a little too fast (according to some fans perhaps) and Jagger slurred (in a good way if you ask me).

That said, Im a fan of the -75 and -76 eras. But of course the Stones never came even close to the majestic -73 or -72 again. Ever.

Regardless of the lore of the 1972 and 1973 tours and how great they were, one thing remains that points to the future: the destruction of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Street Fighting Man. They've since improved SFM but JJF has been a disaster ever since. Why they took the sex out of it and turned it into a race is unfortunate.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
LieB

Quote
Big Al

Quote
cimaz
Interesting thread. Agree partly with the analysis.
In 1969 and 1972 the US tours went better and better after rather sloppy beginnings.
1973 european tour is a mixed bag with the british shows being very good (London 8 and Birmingham 1st particularly) and the end of the tour among their best ever (Brussels 1st of course).
I partly disagree with the LA shows. 9 and 13 July are both great shows. You can consider the tour was too long with 2h30 hours show each night. they should have done a shorter tour. The same can be said for the following US tours (1981, 1989...).

I’ve often read here, how there were a number of weaker performances on the ‘73 European Tour. I’ve really only listened to the Brussels shows’, so would be interested to know which nights’ they were weaker on. I understand Taylor’s noodling was becoming an issue at times.

Personally, I think they were very even in '73. Can't really think of any really sloppy or boring shows. The earliest shows weren't on the same level as Brussels of course, but they got going pretty quickly. There's one boot from Essen (I think) where Mick sings very sloppy, shortening the words in an annoying way. Other than that, I can't think of one bad show really.

They were never bad in -72 or -73. Sloppy in -73 means Taylor, to some, played too many awesome notes on a song. Keith maybe rocked a little too fast (according to some fans perhaps) and Jagger slurred (in a good way if you ask me).

That said, Im a fan of the -75 and -76 eras. But of course the Stones never came even close to the majestic -73 or -72 again. Ever.

Regardless of the lore of the 1972 and 1973 tours and how great they were, one thing remains that points to the future: the destruction of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Street Fighting Man. They've since improved SFM but JJF has been a disaster ever since. Why they took the sex out of it and turned it into a race is unfortunate.

What? IMO the Street Fighting Man from the 1972 and 1973 shows particularly are the greatest performances live in the Stones career.London1973and Brussels 1973 are incredible .Like Nick Kent said following the London 1973 show he saw,nothing could top that.How you could compare that disfavorably to the flaccid post 1994shows with Chuck prominent is puzzlingly.But I respect your opinion.

Quote
cimaz
In 1975 and 1976 the Stones went into some kind of useless Barnum on stage. Even if some shows of this era (NY and LA but not all of them) are still a pleasure to listen to. After The 1973 european Tour you had to wait until the 1978 US tour before they went back to something shorter, raw and essential.

This is absolutely right. I think the tour started out as being about the music. I think the spectacle took a lot less effort than the music

Quote
dcba

Quote
yearsinthemaking
The 1972 Tour only got better as the tour wore on. The 1973 tour arguably got better as well. What happened to make the 1975 go so awry? Drugs, alcohol, the mood of 1975?

Mick admitted the true "off-stage" decadence happened in 75 not in 72...
And I share your opinion : the tour started with a bang (proof that - unlike 72 - they were well-rehearsed from the start) and gradually went... duller? Pro?

Maybe they were a bit tired of playing 2,5hrs at every show? Take a mid-tour stop like Largo :the 1st night was very strong, the 2nd one not so much.

I caught the Stones on the last night of the tour in Buffalo, NY in 75, and least two of the friends I was with thought the show was not that good/did not live up to the hype, or Mick Jagger was out of it. I personally enjoyed the show.

But this is an interesting thread, because I too, after hearing many boots of shows from 1975 over the years, thought the earlier shows on the tour (like Toronto) were better played, more energetic, including Mick Jagger's singing which like yearsinthemaking pointed out above became "sloppy and lazy". My personal theory as to why they sounded worse over time-too many shows packed together in June & July with not enough breaks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-29 19:28 by Sighunt.