For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Taylor1What? 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
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
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
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
Quote
dcbaQuote
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
jbweldaQuote
dcbaQuote
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
I wish there was a like button here on IORR.org as your post is perfect and I agree 100% .Quote
MathijsQuote
jbweldaQuote
dcbaQuote
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
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.
Quote
dcbaQuote
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!
Quote
dcbaQuote
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!
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.
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”Quote
dcbaQuote
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.
Excellent analysisQuote
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.