Quote
Taylor1

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.

LOL no. I wasn't clear enough. JJF left the runway after 1969. There were some performances of SFM in 72 and 73 that seemed to be on the verge but at some point they did and it's not necessarily the speed but Jagger. It wasn't until the LICKS tour that they finally got back to playing it, let's say, correctly (of course, I'm purposely leaving out the STRIPPED era on purpose).

SIX nights in a row in NYC- FIVE nights in a row in LA - I think they were just burning too much gas.

Is it a coincidence that they went from performing on stage in 72 and 73 to performing around big stupid props in 75? I do not think so, I think they purposely went for the spectacle to cover their ineptitude musically at that point. Jaggers singing is really bad, as noted, cutting off and slurring words and in general not giving a sh*t about how he sounded or how he sang. The added percussion on fingerprint file for instance is really kool, but Billy Preston was always a drag if you ask me, and in 75 they relied on him a lot more than they should have. It was truly the beginning of the end for exciting well played stage shows out of these guys. That Ronnie has morphed from an adequate guitar player to someone running around the stage, paying more attention to the audience than to his playing, has only hurt matters. These days they rely so much on outside musicians and a stage full of backers and singers that it is beyond the pale, and it all started with the 75 tour, each tour has to be more of a spectacle with less musicianship in display.

jb

Quote
jbwelda
Is it a coincidence that they went from performing on stage in 72 and 73 to performing around big stupid props in 75? I do not think so, I think they purposely went for the spectacle to cover their ineptitude musically at that point.
jb

What? This is Led Zep in 1975 you're describing here!

Quote
jbwelda
Is it a coincidence that they went from performing on stage in 72 and 73 to performing around big stupid props in 75? I do not think so, I think they purposely went for the spectacle to cover their ineptitude musically at that point.

jb

What? So you think a conscious decision was made to add props because they concluded they were "inept" musically in 1975?

"Who do I have to sleep with to get OFF of this tour?'

Lisa Robinson 1975

I remember years ago reading in the “Encyclopedia of Rock” from the late 70’s describing Mick’s performance in ‘75 as a “parody of himself”. I think that’s a sad but accurate description of his stage performance

All I know is that I was at the Greensboro NC show in 75, my very first Stones concert, and it was magnificent.

Of the 10 times I've seen the Stones, one of the best!

Quote
yearsinthemaking
I remember years ago reading in the “Encyclopedia of Rock” from the late 70’s describing Mick’s performance in ‘75 as a “parody of himself”. I think that’s a sad but accurate description of his stage performance

I also remember reading something along those lines in other music trade publications/ magazines in the mid to late 1970's describing Jagger as a parody of himself.

I really like the set from 1975/76 with Get Off My Cloud and Wild Horses. I like when they played Little Red Rooster as well. The tours are really druggy and decadent, but that's where they were in their lives.

I don't think they're as musically satisfying as the 72/73 tours, and seems like the fallout from the second iteration of the band. Then they had a resurrection with Some Girls, and I give credit to Jagger for taking a step back and simplifying everything.

Aren't we deep into Keith's junkiedom by 1975? Yes, breaking in a new guitarist. Charlie and Bill are fine, but they always were. Mick seems to have reached his exhaustion point. Notice the next tour of the U.S. in 1978 was shorter, and Mick seems in much better shape. I think he thought of '78 as a comeback of sorts, and was much more serious. Plus the uncertainty with Keith's drug conviction in Canada probably sharpened their focus.

I don’t think the point of the 1975 tour was for it to be a tight punk like music event.It was supposed to be extravagant with boozy feel,but still good musicianship.It was sort of the end of the glam era ,and Mick was still kinda of into that phase.Personally ,for me,the best moments,Honky Tonk Women,If you Can’t Rock Me/Get Off My Cloud,Sympathy for the Devil,Wild Horses, Gimme Shelter, All Down the Line, Jumping Jack Flash,make it one of my favorite tours

Quote
dcba

Quote
jbwelda
Is it a coincidence that they went from performing on stage in 72 and 73 to performing around big stupid props in 75? I do not think so, I think they purposely went for the spectacle to cover their ineptitude musically at that point.
jb

What? This is Led Zep in 1975 you're describing here!

wouldn't know, didn't give one whit about them after their initial album. Mostly because of the implications in your statement, just didn't show me much.

And I don't mean specifically to cover their ineptitude, it just allowed them to hide behind the spectacle and not have to deliver so much musically. And it seemed like Jagger was piss-taking everything, not serious about singing the song. I did not go to any shows that tour because I was otherwise occupied, but everything i saw and heard, then and since, told me they were pretty much washed up. But then Some Girls came along and my interest was renewed, much as was the case with Blue and Lonesome more recently.

jb

They played a lot of shows in a row and close together. 46 shows in 68 days. And the first two shows were on the same day! 6 shows in 6 days at Madison Square Garden. 5 in 5 at the Forum.

Perhaps that's why Mick established The Grunt.

Quote
jbwelda

Quote
dcba

Quote
jbwelda
Is it a coincidence that they went from performing on stage in 72 and 73 to performing around big stupid props in 75? I do not think so, I think they purposely went for the spectacle to cover their ineptitude musically at that point.
jb

What? This is Led Zep in 1975 you're describing here!

wouldn't know, didn't give one whit about them after their initial album. Mostly because of the implications in your statement, just didn't show me much.

And I don't mean specifically to cover their ineptitude, it just allowed them to hide behind the spectacle and not have to deliver so much musically. And it seemed like Jagger was piss-taking everything, not serious about singing the song. I did not go to any shows that tour because I was otherwise occupied, but everything i saw and heard, then and since, told me they were pretty much washed up. But then Some Girls came along and my interest was renewed, much as was the case with Blue and Lonesome more recently.

jb

The 1975 tour was fantastic from a music standpoint -Richards and Watts were really so much better than ever before, they really improved greatly from the 1973 tour on. The way you describe Jagger's performance is true for New York and LA -for some reason he changed his singing and stage performance in these two cities. But for most of the tour he was singing in his normal way, not slurring, not pretending to be drunk and washed up, not pretending to be coked up. But even that I like -it was different than before, it is new, and I simply like this boozed up image of the Stones in 1975.

Mathijs

Not many people will agree with you, Mathis, that Keith and Charlie were in any way better in '75 than in '72-73.

I certainly don't. I was at a London '73 show and it was, as for Nick Kent, something that they could never top again. Largely due to such high energy and faultless engagement of and between Keith and Charlie. Though whole band as cohesive tour de force with Mick inspired by K & C and by the amazing Mick Taylor.

I agree with someone else above that they did not really start to rediscover some form of this united band energy until '78 - where Ronnie was staring to be more integrated into their band sound.

In '75 he was still largely playing like a Faces guitarist and he hadn't started to blend instinctively with Keith, in a way that MT did immediately in '69.

( That's not a ronnie bash - it just took him longer to adjust and to gel) - by '81-82 he had fully fledged. )

But worst thing about 75 - and - 76 was the dominance of Billy Preston. Unlike '73, where he was a new and tasteful addition. By 75-76, they were depending on him and it made them lazy. He had an energy of his own and could be relied on- but this was no longer a hard-cor five-piece with some good sidemen. This was now a Mick and Billy show, far too much. And it became a spectacle. Too many props.Vaudeville. Not real rock and roll. Rock and roll as a theatre act.

And personally I don't think the extra percussionist worked with Charlie. Kind- of confused the percussive issue rather than integrating or reinforcing it.

You want it raw and real in '75? Check out Led Zeppelin at Earls Court in May or The Who at Wembley indoor, October I think.

And Dr Feel-good had released the first album ( in momo) and we're rebooting things from basics. Brilliant.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
jbwelda

Quote
dcba

Quote
jbwelda
Is it a coincidence that they went from performing on stage in 72 and 73 to performing around big stupid props in 75? I do not think so, I think they purposely went for the spectacle to cover their ineptitude musically at that point.
jb

What? This is Led Zep in 1975 you're describing here!

wouldn't know, didn't give one whit about them after their initial album. Mostly because of the implications in your statement, just didn't show me much.

And I don't mean specifically to cover their ineptitude, it just allowed them to hide behind the spectacle and not have to deliver so much musically. And it seemed like Jagger was piss-taking everything, not serious about singing the song. I did not go to any shows that tour because I was otherwise occupied, but everything i saw and heard, then and since, told me they were pretty much washed up. But then Some Girls came along and my interest was renewed, much as was the case with Blue and Lonesome more recently.

jb

The 1975 tour was fantastic from a music standpoint -Richards and Watts were really so much better than ever before, they really improved greatly from the 1973 tour on. The way you describe Jagger's performance is true for New York and LA -for some reason he changed his singing and stage performance in these two cities. But for most of the tour he was singing in his normal way, not slurring, not pretending to be drunk and washed up, not pretending to be coked up. But even that I like -it was different than before, it is new, and I simply like this boozed up image of the Stones in 1975.

Mathijs

I wish there was a like button here on IORR.org as your post is perfect and I agree 100% .

100 points to Mathijs! I fully support his opinion.

It`s nice to be here, .....

Quote
Four Stone Walls


In '75 he was still largely playing like a Faces guitarist and he hadn't started to blend instinctively with Keith, in a way that MT did immediately in '69.

In 73 what jumps at you is the blending between Keef and MT is gone. Each man plays his part it's very cut and dried at times quite boring. Take "Gimme shelter" you know when MT's going to play his solo, what he's going to play when he's going to end and hand the torch back to Keef.
There's no interplay, it's like a stage play with 2 actors delivering their lines for the uptenth time. At least one of them (Keef naturally) tries to inject a bit of freshness into the whole thing.

Don't get me there but I think MT's departure was a good thing for the band. Otherwise the 75 tour would have a 1973 tour part two. A painfully cut-and-dried musical output (Keef on basic chords, MT on leads) and a 20-minute version of "Time Waits..." where MT soloes ad-lib while Jagger prances onstage.

God no!

And of course it all could depend on what show you hear. Most of us only know the show that was released on DVD, one of the L.A. shows. One of those nights is supposed to be legendary. It was assumed to '78 tour was a bust until the Texas DVD was released. Obviously we need a larger sample to draw from.

And if you're extolling the Richards/Watts connection in '73, don't leave out Bill, who Keith marveled at on that tour.

Gimme Shelter and Brown Sugar are perfect examples of where Billy Preston proves to be a horrific addition to the band. In ‘73 he’s in the background and does nothing ridiculous. In ‘75 he just adds silly, childish noises that are a huge distraction. I just think the tour went a little off the rails

Quote
dcba

Quote
Four Stone Walls


In '75 he was still largely playing like a Faces guitarist and he hadn't started to blend instinctively with Keith, in a way that MT did immediately in '69.

In 73 what jumps at you is the blending between Keef and MT is gone. Each man plays his part it's very cut and dried at times quite boring. Take "Gimme shelter" you know when MT's going to play his solo, what he's going to play when he's going to end and hand the torch back to Keef.
There's no interplay, it's like a stage play with 2 actors delivering their lines for the uptenth time. At least one of them (Keef naturally) tries to inject a bit of freshness into the whole thing.

Don't get me there but I think MT's departure was a good thing for the band. Otherwise the 75 tour would have a 1973 tour part two. A painfully cut-and-dried musical output (Keef on basic chords, MT on leads) and a 20-minute version of "Time Waits..." where MT soloes ad-lib while Jagger prances onstage.

God no!

But ‘75 was ‘73 part two, just with a stand-in instead of a lead actor. Wood didn’t have any time to develop new stuff and it’s obvious he listened to Taylor’s parts for influence. But he’s not a Taylor-type player. He would have never made it in the Bluesbreakers. And that’s FINE. There are still some great musical moments on the tour but to say it is vastly different from ‘73 just isn’t correct.

Like I said before, the Ron Wood era became unique with the Some Girls tour when they stripped everything back and started over.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-30 17:10 by TravelinMan.

Quote
dcba

Quote
Four Stone Walls


In '75 he was still largely playing like a Faces guitarist and he hadn't started to blend instinctively with Keith, in a way that MT did immediately in '69.

In 73 what jumps at you is the blending between Keef and MT is gone. Each man plays his part it's very cut and dried at times quite boring. Take "Gimme shelter" you know when MT's going to play his solo, what he's going to play when he's going to end and hand the torch back to Keef.
There's no interplay, it's like a stage play with 2 actors delivering their lines for the uptenth time. At least one of them (Keef naturally) tries to inject a bit of freshness into the whole thing.

Don't get me there but I think MT's departure was a good thing for the band. Otherwise the 75 tour would have a 1973 tour part two. A painfully cut-and-dried musical output (Keef on basic chords, MT on leads) and a 20-minute version of "Time Waits..." where MT soloes ad-lib while Jagger prances onstage.

God no!

Taylor had his time with the Stones from 1969 to 1973. But slowly it got boring to hear and see Taylor on stage. I was happy when he left the group in 1974 and Ronnie came in. It brought a breath of fresh air, it brought new energy and enlivened the live shows. The Stones were again the Stones, as I imagined and wished them to be. Can anyone imagine the Some Girls album with Mick Taylor? It was good that Mick came in 1969, but also when he left in 1974.
The 1975 tour finally brought about the right turn.
That is also the reason why they are still where they are!

It`s nice to be here, .....

Quote
witterings
Taylor had his time with the Stones from 1969 to 1973. But slowly it got boring to hear and see Taylor on stage. I was happy when he left the group in 1974 and Ronnie came in. It brought a breath of fresh air, it brought new energy and enlivened the live shows.

I agree. Imho in 75 the band (or Mick?) made one mistake : thinking they had to compensate for the loss of MT by playing much longer gigs.That led to gigs that sometimes lacked some energy (the punishing tour schedule didn't help...).

2Hrs top was more than enough for me. Leave the silly live marathons to Yes or Led Balloon.

Quote
dcba

Quote
witterings
Taylor had his time with the Stones from 1969 to 1973. But slowly it got boring to hear and see Taylor on stage. I was happy when he left the group in 1974 and Ronnie came in. It brought a breath of fresh air, it brought new energy and enlivened the live shows.

I agree. Imho in 75 the band (or Mick?) made one mistake : thinking they had to compensate for the loss of MT by playing much longer gigs.That led to gigs that sometimes lacked some energy (the punishing tour schedule didn't help...).

2Hrs top was more than enough for me. Leave the silly live marathons to Yes or Led Balloon.

Really? Brussel1973 Taylor was boring? 1972 NYC 1972Taylor was boring? They were at their peak as a live band in 1973.There were other great tours,1975,1978 1989, but to say the band wasn’t great in the fall of 1973 live ,I don’t agree at all.The band was lame live for most of the last 25 years.Should we say Wood’s time came and went?Were you actually there to see those shows? Nick Kent was at one of theLondon 1973shows and said “the audience needed smelling salts after the show and nothing could top it”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-03-30 18:23 by Taylor1.

Times change. The hard rocking Stones of '72 gave way to the '75 disco, elegantly wasted Stones. The music was too serious for the times, so camp it up. Just like '78 had a punk edge to it. By '81 they said, screw it, let's just give them a good time.

Quote
24FPS
Times change. The hard rocking Stones of '72 gave way to the '75 disco, elegantly wasted Stones. The music was too serious for the times, so camp it up. Just like '78 had a punk edge to it. By '81 they said, screw it, let's just give them a good time.

Excellent analysis

Nick Kent was an idiot with horrible musical taste.

IMO of course.

jb

Yes I was at the Seattle July 18 show. It was my first Rolling Stones concert and 2nd concert ever (which was Deep Purple).

I was 15 years and it is still my favorite concert of all time after hundreds of shows and 50+ Rolling Stones shows including the Hard Rock concert at The Joint and Echoplex . Completely blew my mind.