For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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?
What do you mean.?Quote
Rockman
Stones 75 ... The Roman Orgy Tour
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...).
Quote
Big AlQuote
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
LieBQuote
Big AlQuote
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
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.
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
LieBQuote
Big AlQuote
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
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.
Quote
MathijsQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
LieBQuote
Big AlQuote
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
Quote
Valeswood
Seattle 18th July is a great show from this tour.
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
LieBQuote
Big AlQuote
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.
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
GasLightStreetQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
LieBQuote
Big AlQuote
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
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.
Quote
dcbaQuote
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.