Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4
Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: November 8, 2024 15:07

Quote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !

I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English grinning smiley

One of the biggest issues I have in my critical department of judging Rolling Stones live performances is that why the 'hurryupism' did work so well in 1972 and 1973 but not so well in 1981 and 1982.

- Doxa

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: RisingStone ()
Date: November 8, 2024 15:39

Monkey Man and Rocks Off have something in common in that they both feature the fascinating middle eight that doesn’t translate well live onstage, that dreamy flow on the former and the freak-out section on the latter.

However, after all is said and done, most of the times I find myself enjoying those songs that “do not work live” in committed fans’ opinion as how they are, e.g. 2000 Light Years From Home, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong etc. They are all welcome when I am there.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: rollmops ()
Date: November 8, 2024 16:04

Quote
RisingStone
Monkey Man and Rocks Off have something in common in that they both feature the fascinating middle eight that doesn’t translate well live onstage, that dreamy flow on the former and the freak-out section on the latter.

However, after all is said and done, most of the times I find myself enjoying those songs that “do not work live” in committed fans’ opinion as how they are, e.g. 2000 Light Years From Home, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong etc. They are all welcome when I am there.

Both of these great songs have Nicky Hopkins on keys; it is no wonder they are amazing!

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: November 8, 2024 17:06

I wonder how how our opinions of some live song performances would differ if we didn't have the original recording as a reference ?

Sometimes there's a vibe captured on record that can never be duplicated on stage, which might then sour our response to the performance .

Other songs might be very different when played live, but kind of develop their own live on stage alter ego that stands on its own and is appreciated for itself .

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: powerage78 ()
Date: November 8, 2024 17:39

Too often, the distracted Ronnie is a poor rhythm guitarist, and the songs lack power and structure... Taylor was focused and diligent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-08 17:42 by powerage78.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: November 8, 2024 20:25

Quote
bakersfield
Please point me at a live version of 'Shattered' that comes anywhere near the level of the album version. The last minute of the song, when Charlie builds up the momentum is one of their greatest recorded moments IMHO.

But I agree about Rocks off. They (almost!) play the right notes but they don't get near the soul of the song. It's the same with Memory Motel,Worried About You, or Loving Cup. These rarities look great on a set list but they sound stiff with no emotional investment. Thats how I hear it anyway

Shattered has never been anywhere near the album version, in general execution, but in regard to overall feel, that kind of ease the album version has, 1994-95 is the closest and the best of all live versions because Charlie plays through the bridge while Ronnie is playing all the leads (listen to any live version after and after Ronnie plays a couple of chimes at first they just vamp with chords and it's stop and go).

The biggest issue with She's So Cold, She Was Hot and a few others is the intricacy of the studio version - specific dynamics while letting the song breathe. Album version of She's So Cold is outstanding because of attention to detail and underplaying, the ease of the guitars; She Was Hot works great because of attention to the sections, how the song maneuvers, where there are pauses, what Charlie does in relation to the verses etc.

Which is why some songs can't work live or, in some instances, like Emotional Rescue, don't work live: Miss You has a swing to it, a blues disco, whereas ER is a huge painting with areas of paint in specific places - live it's just a field being plowed.

Mixed Emotions live was better than the studio version because they allowed it to flow - the choruses opened up. On record it's cinder block after cinder block.

That VOODOO Dan Akroyd rehearsal of Rocks Off - Mick is singing it the closest to the studio version and it works great. Listen to a majority of other live versions and he steps up an octave or whatever way too soon and it runs out of room - it's strained.

My all time favorite live Shattered is from the live boot SPARKS WILL FLY 8-14-1994 New Jersey show but this 1995 one will have to do.

Why 1994-95 Shattered works best of all live versions with the bridge at 1:45.




Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: November 8, 2024 20:39

Quote
Spud
I wonder how how our opinions of some live song performances would differ if we didn't have the original recording as a reference ?

Sometimes there's a vibe captured on record that can never be duplicated on stage, which might then sour our response to the performance .

Other songs might be very different when played live, but kind of develop their own live on stage alter ego that stands on its own and is appreciated for itself .

This might be the ultimate live version in aspect of what you just wondered: I only heard the YA YAS/HOT ROCKS Midnight Rambler for years before I got around to listening to the album version... and to this day, it's difficult to listen to the album version all the way through.

Biased? That may be so, right? But. I do believe had I never heard the LET IT BLEED version I wouldn't be missing anything.

Midnight Rambler is the perfect example of Keith's position of how some songs come alive on stage, a subtle way of saying, I'm guessing, they're better than the studio version, and I do not recall ever hearing/listening to a live version of Midnight Rambler that does not disappoint in regard to the album version.

1969 Jumpin' Jack Flash has that same aspect, and while YA-YAS is awesome, GIMME SHELTER's actual live version is even better, and for me, of all the gazillion live versions out there, the best one.

The studio version of JJF is awesome but that 1969 version is better. And after 1970, it's been a disaster ever since.

Whenever it was, first hearing Love Is Strong live, yet alone seeing them twice that tour and wondering why they were playing it (aside from the obvious reason why) not only could they not play the song worth a damn Mick couldn't even sing it halfassed. Which is absolutely bizarre considering Keith's live version of Wicked As It Seems worked fantastically live.

Monkey Man in 1994 was awesome, I thought, and a huge surprise, and the live performance was very good, but then came LIVE LICKS and holy crap it's even better. Better than the LP version? No but way better live compared to any Rocks Off live version.

Re: Rocks off live
Date: November 8, 2024 22:10

Quote
Doxa

One of the biggest issues I have in my critical department of judging Rolling Stones live performances is that why the 'hurryupism' did work so well in 1972 and 1973 but not so well in 1981 and 1982.

- Doxa

Best rhetorical question this year.grinning smiley

What do you prefer when cruising a 200km/h: a low revving engine ('72-73) or a high revving engine? ('81-'82) ?

I'm an easy rider.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: November 8, 2024 22:52

Quote
Doxa
Quote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !

I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English grinning smiley

One of the biggest issues I have in my critical department of judging Rolling Stones live performances is that why the 'hurryupism' did work so well in 1972 and 1973 but not so well in 1981 and 1982.

- Doxa

1972-73: aside from whatever they were on, they were still finding their sound and were extremely focused - perhaps too much. Brussels Doo Doo Doo... fast, a bit off here and there - but it sounds like the song.

It hasn't sounded like it since.

StarStar - focused, laser performance.

Tumbling Dice - raggily and lopsided, it swings instead of rolls.

Angie and Dancing With Mr D - absolute greatness.

But that's where it ends, to my ears, in regard to the greatness.

Gimme Shelter, All Down The Line, HTW, Rip This Joint, JJF and SFM - so beyond their framework and, especially JJF and SFM, pointless. SFM is ridiculous.


1981-82: it sounds like they regret booking the tours. Aside from Under My Thumb, Imagination, Time Is On My Side, Black Limo, Twenty Flight, Let It Bleed and HTW, it sounds like they'd rather be at the pub. A majority of the songs are too fast and unfocused. As in, not a good sloppiness, although LSTNT will always be fantastically awful. She's So Cold - as bad as SFM 1973 - pointless.

1978... completely different band. It's amazing. It's like they took 1972-73 Stones and slowed it down and super dialed.

For me, the Taylor era certainly spans the entire 1969-1973 live version of the band in regard to whatever songs were played on each tour that are better, and of course, whatever's new at the time (the dumpy thumpy Sweet Virginia is insanely awesome).

The Ronnie era... not a lot go go with. Maybe a couple from 1975-76. 1978 is the best. Nothing from 1981-82 stands out except for Black Limo and maybe Let It Bleed as far as Ronnie goes. Aside from a few things during 1989-90 and extremely selective things from 1994-95, that's it. There's no point in saying, Well, Monkey Man in 2002-03 was really good.

In that exact perspective, it's no wonder the Taylor ear fans are so loud about what live era is better.

Compare SFM (and even JJF) 1972-73 to She's So Cold 1981-82... the only comparison is they're awful, pointless and unlistenable.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: November 8, 2024 23:53

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
Doxa
Quote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !

I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English grinning smiley

One of the biggest issues I have in my critical department of judging Rolling Stones live performances is that why the 'hurryupism' did work so well in 1972 and 1973 but not so well in 1981 and 1982.

- Doxa

1972-73: aside from whatever they were on, they were still finding their sound and were extremely focused - perhaps too much. Brussels Doo Doo Doo... fast, a bit off here and there - but it sounds like the song.

It hasn't sounded like it since.

StarStar - focused, laser performance.

Tumbling Dice - raggily and lopsided, it swings instead of rolls.

Angie and Dancing With Mr D - absolute greatness.

But that's where it ends, to my ears, in regard to the greatness.

Gimme Shelter, All Down The Line, HTW, Rip This Joint, JJF and SFM - so beyond their framework and, especially JJF and SFM, pointless. SFM is ridiculous.


1981-82: it sounds like they regret booking the tours. Aside from Under My Thumb, Imagination, Time Is On My Side, Black Limo, Twenty Flight, Let It Bleed and HTW, it sounds like they'd rather be at the pub. A majority of the songs are too fast and unfocused. As in, not a good sloppiness, although LSTNT will always be fantastically awful. She's So Cold - as bad as SFM 1973 - pointless.

1978... completely different band. It's amazing. It's like they took 1972-73 Stones and slowed it down and super dialed.

For me, the Taylor era certainly spans the entire 1969-1973 live version of the band in regard to whatever songs were played on each tour that are better, and of course, whatever's new at the time (the dumpy thumpy Sweet Virginia is insanely awesome).

The Ronnie era... not a lot go go with. Maybe a couple from 1975-76. 1978 is the best. Nothing from 1981-82 stands out except for Black Limo and maybe Let It Bleed as far as Ronnie goes. Aside from a few things during 1989-90 and extremely selective things from 1994-95, that's it. There's no point in saying, Well, Monkey Man in 2002-03 was really good.

In that exact perspective, it's no wonder the Taylor ear fans are so loud about what live era is better.

Compare SFM (and even JJF) 1972-73 to She's So Cold 1981-82... the only comparison is they're awful, pointless and unlistenable.
I respectfully disagree totally with your analysis.SFM from1972-1973 is incredibly energetic and intense.Ditto JJF and all the other songs you don’t like.The last 3songs they closed the 1972 and1973 shows , are rock at its greatest.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-09 01:48 by Taylor1.

Re: Rocks off live
Date: November 9, 2024 14:50

Quote
Taylor1
.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

The Mahavishnu Orchestra could, but this is a Stones site of course. smiling smiley

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: TravelinMan ()
Date: November 9, 2024 14:57

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
Taylor1
.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

The Mahavishnu Orchestra could, but this is a Stones site of course. smiling smiley

I assumed he was referring to rock bands. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the Stones.

Re: Rocks off live
Date: November 9, 2024 18:02

Quote
TravelinMan
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
Taylor1
.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

The Mahavishnu Orchestra could, but this is a Stones site of course. smiling smiley

I assumed he was referring to rock bands. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the Stones.

I know, just joking. Mahavishnu was the most heavy and loudest band in their division I have ever heard and seen . Like a pneumatic hammer.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: More Hot Rocks ()
Date: November 9, 2024 18:36

Quote
RisingStone
Monkey Man and Rocks Off have something in common in that they both feature the fascinating middle eight that doesn’t translate well live onstage, that dreamy flow on the former and the freak-out section on the latter.

However, after all is said and done, most of the times I find myself enjoying those songs that “do not work live” in committed fans’ opinion as how they are, e.g. 2000 Light Years From Home, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong etc. They are all welcome when I am there.

Monkey man does not have a middle eight

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: RisingStone ()
Date: November 9, 2024 19:56

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Quote
RisingStone
Monkey Man and Rocks Off have something in common in that they both feature the fascinating middle eight that doesn’t translate well live onstage, that dreamy flow on the former and the freak-out section on the latter.

However, after all is said and done, most of the times I find myself enjoying those songs that “do not work live” in committed fans’ opinion as how they are, e.g. 2000 Light Years From Home, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong etc. They are all welcome when I am there.

Monkey man does not have a middle eight

Considering that dreamy interlude does not carry lyrics, you are right.
What is it then, for want of a better word?

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: November 9, 2024 20:10

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
TravelinMan
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
Taylor1
.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

The Mahavishnu Orchestra could, but this is a Stones site of course. smiling smiley

I assumed he was referring to rock bands. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the Stones.

I know, just joking. Mahavishnu was the most heavy and loudest band in their division I have ever heard and seen . Like a pneumatic hammer.
Nick Kent said that after one of the Wembley shows in1973”smelling salts needed to be handed out to the audience,that any band would be hard pressed to top that”.WishI had been old enough to have seen that.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: November 9, 2024 21:08

Quote
RisingStone
Quote
More Hot Rocks
Quote
RisingStone
Monkey Man and Rocks Off have something in common in that they both feature the fascinating middle eight that doesn’t translate well live onstage, that dreamy flow on the former and the freak-out section on the latter.

However, after all is said and done, most of the times I find myself enjoying those songs that “do not work live” in committed fans’ opinion as how they are, e.g. 2000 Light Years From Home, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong etc. They are all welcome when I am there.

Monkey man does not have a middle eight

Considering that dreamy interlude does not carry lyrics, you are right.
What is it then, for want of a better word?

It's called a break.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: November 9, 2024 21:10

Quote
Taylor1
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
Doxa
Quote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !

I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English grinning smiley

One of the biggest issues I have in my critical department of judging Rolling Stones live performances is that why the 'hurryupism' did work so well in 1972 and 1973 but not so well in 1981 and 1982.

- Doxa

1972-73: aside from whatever they were on, they were still finding their sound and were extremely focused - perhaps too much. Brussels Doo Doo Doo... fast, a bit off here and there - but it sounds like the song.

It hasn't sounded like it since.

StarStar - focused, laser performance.

Tumbling Dice - raggily and lopsided, it swings instead of rolls.

Angie and Dancing With Mr D - absolute greatness.

But that's where it ends, to my ears, in regard to the greatness.

Gimme Shelter, All Down The Line, HTW, Rip This Joint, JJF and SFM - so beyond their framework and, especially JJF and SFM, pointless. SFM is ridiculous.


1981-82: it sounds like they regret booking the tours. Aside from Under My Thumb, Imagination, Time Is On My Side, Black Limo, Twenty Flight, Let It Bleed and HTW, it sounds like they'd rather be at the pub. A majority of the songs are too fast and unfocused. As in, not a good sloppiness, although LSTNT will always be fantastically awful. She's So Cold - as bad as SFM 1973 - pointless.

1978... completely different band. It's amazing. It's like they took 1972-73 Stones and slowed it down and super dialed.

For me, the Taylor era certainly spans the entire 1969-1973 live version of the band in regard to whatever songs were played on each tour that are better, and of course, whatever's new at the time (the dumpy thumpy Sweet Virginia is insanely awesome).

The Ronnie era... not a lot go go with. Maybe a couple from 1975-76. 1978 is the best. Nothing from 1981-82 stands out except for Black Limo and maybe Let It Bleed as far as Ronnie goes. Aside from a few things during 1989-90 and extremely selective things from 1994-95, that's it. There's no point in saying, Well, Monkey Man in 2002-03 was really good.

In that exact perspective, it's no wonder the Taylor ear fans are so loud about what live era is better.

Compare SFM (and even JJF) 1972-73 to She's So Cold 1981-82... the only comparison is they're awful, pointless and unlistenable.
I respectfully disagree totally with your analysis.SFM from1972-1973 is incredibly energetic and intense.Ditto JJF and all the other songs you don’t like.The last 3songs they closed the 1972 and1973 shows , are rock at its greatest.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

I didn't say they weren't energetic and intense. They certainly are.

They're also ridiculous noise, especially SFM. Bill Wyman was expressing an overall attitude, not because they could play JJF 200 mph and Mick sounds like he's trying to give birth.

Re: Rocks off live
Date: November 9, 2024 21:52

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
Taylor1
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
Doxa
Quote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !

I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English grinning smiley

One of the biggest issues I have in my critical department of judging Rolling Stones live performances is that why the 'hurryupism' did work so well in 1972 and 1973 but not so well in 1981 and 1982.

- Doxa


1972-73: aside from whatever they were on, they were still finding their sound and were extremely focused - perhaps too much. Brussels Doo Doo Doo... fast, a bit off here and there - but it sounds like the song.

It hasn't sounded like it since.

StarStar - focused, laser performance.

Tumbling Dice - raggily and lopsided, it swings instead of rolls.

Angie and Dancing With Mr D - absolute greatness.

But that's where it ends, to my ears, in regard to the greatness.

Gimme Shelter, All Down The Line, HTW, Rip This Joint, JJF and SFM - so beyond their framework and, especially JJF and SFM, pointless. SFM is ridiculous.


1981-82: it sounds like they regret booking the tours. Aside from Under My Thumb, Imagination, Time Is On My Side, Black Limo, Twenty Flight, Let It Bleed and HTW, it sounds like they'd rather be at the pub. A majority of the songs are too fast and unfocused. As in, not a good sloppiness, although LSTNT will always be fantastically awful. She's So Cold - as bad as SFM 1973 - pointless.

1978... completely different band. It's amazing. It's like they took 1972-73 Stones and slowed it down and super dialed.

For me, the Taylor era certainly spans the entire 1969-1973 live version of the band in regard to whatever songs were played on each tour that are better, and of course, whatever's new at the time (the dumpy thumpy Sweet Virginia is insanely awesome).

The Ronnie era... not a lot go go with. Maybe a couple from 1975-76. 1978 is the best. Nothing from 1981-82 stands out except for Black Limo and maybe Let It Bleed as far as Ronnie goes. Aside from a few things during 1989-90 and extremely selective things from 1994-95, that's it. There's no point in saying, Well, Monkey Man in 2002-03 was really good.

In that exact perspective, it's no wonder the Taylor ear fans are so loud about what live era is better.

Compare SFM (and even JJF) 1972-73 to She's So Cold 1981-82... the only comparison is they're awful, pointless and unlistenable.
I respectfully disagree totally with your analysis.SFM from1972-1973 is incredibly energetic and intense.Ditto JJF and all the other songs you don’t like.The last 3songs they closed the 1972 and1973 shows , are rock at its greatest.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

I didn't say they weren't energetic and intense. They certainly are.

They're also ridiculous noise, especially SFM. Bill Wyman was expressing an overall attitude, not because they could play JJF 200 mph and Mick sounds like he's trying to give birth.


The Stones got away with everything. For better or worse. No use to search for an explanation. It's a matter of taste.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: November 10, 2024 15:01

Quote
powerage78
Too often, the distracted Ronnie is a poor rhythm guitarist, and the songs lack power and structure... Taylor was focused and diligent.
This is precisely why Taylor was never a real Rolling Stones!

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: November 10, 2024 15:21

Quote
GasLightStreet
In that exact perspective, it's no wonder the Taylor ear fans are so loud about what live era is better.

But you forget that the most important era of the Stones was not with Ronnie but not even with Taylor but it was the one with Brian J. and it was the most important era of the Stones!
The Taylor period was important, but they were no longer them! Taylor had distorted them, Ronnie brought them closer to their nature. The Taylor period, especially live, had made them become one of the many bands of the 70s.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: November 10, 2024 20:12

Taylor years live were the best.Wood brings them back to what? On most songs Brian doesn’t even play guitar.From Between the Buttons to Let it Bleed he plays almost no guitar.On the earlier albums a lot of the time he isn’t playing guitar .So Taylor distorted the band? He distorted Sticky Finger and Exile? He distorted Honky Tonk Women? I don’t think so and the Stones themselves disagree with you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-10 20:13 by Taylor1.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: November 10, 2024 21:12

Listen to a live performance from the 60s and you'll understand it yourself...
Ronnie is closer to Brian's style, Keith himself mentioned it and it's evident.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: November 10, 2024 22:33

Quote
Testify
Listen to a live performance from the 60s and you'll understand it yourself...
Ronnie is closer to Brian's style, Keith himself mentioned it and it's evident.
Who cares?What else was Keith going to say? They were worse?In1974 Keith said that the band was better with Taylor than Jones.”I believe the quote was people think the Stones were better in1964 because they were screwing some chick in the back of a car with Tell Me on the radio”.I disagree with your opinion, respectfully.And yes,I love Brian and Wood’s contributions



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-11 03:05 by Taylor1.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: MadMax ()
Date: November 11, 2024 11:58

Quote
Taylor1
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
TravelinMan
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
Taylor1
.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

The Mahavishnu Orchestra could, but this is a Stones site of course. smiling smiley

I assumed he was referring to rock bands. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the Stones.

I know, just joking. Mahavishnu was the most heavy and loudest band in their division I have ever heard and seen . Like a pneumatic hammer.
Nick Kent said that after one of the Wembley shows in1973”smelling salts needed to be handed out to the audience,that any band would be hard pressed to top that”.WishI had been old enough to have seen that.

Wasn't it cyanide? No use in going to another show as nothing would EVER top that? smileys with beer

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: MadMax ()
Date: November 11, 2024 11:59

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
RisingStone
Quote
More Hot Rocks
Quote
RisingStone
Monkey Man and Rocks Off have something in common in that they both feature the fascinating middle eight that doesn’t translate well live onstage, that dreamy flow on the former and the freak-out section on the latter.

However, after all is said and done, most of the times I find myself enjoying those songs that “do not work live” in committed fans’ opinion as how they are, e.g. 2000 Light Years From Home, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong etc. They are all welcome when I am there.

Monkey man does not have a middle eight

Considering that dreamy interlude does not carry lyrics, you are right.
What is it then, for want of a better word?

It's called a break.


Who ever said that a Middle 8 should include lyrics?!?!? confused smiley

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: Taylor1 ()
Date: November 11, 2024 14:44

Quote
MadMax
Quote
Taylor1
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
TravelinMan
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Quote
Taylor1
.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.

The Mahavishnu Orchestra could, but this is a Stones site of course. smiling smiley

I assumed he was referring to rock bands. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the Stones.

I know, just joking. Mahavishnu was the most heavy and loudest band in their division I have ever heard and seen . Like a pneumatic hammer.
Nick Kent said that after one of the Wembley shows in1973”smelling salts needed to be handed out to the audience,that any band would be hard pressed to top that”.WishI had been old enough to have seen that.

Wasn't it cyanide? No use in going to another show as nothing would EVER top that? smileys with beer
Tou are right

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: TravelinMan ()
Date: November 11, 2024 16:22

Quote
Testify
Quote
powerage78
Too often, the distracted Ronnie is a poor rhythm guitarist, and the songs lack power and structure... Taylor was focused and diligent.
This is precisely why Taylor was never a real Rolling Stones!

lol I love this foolishness. Yet, being a “real Rolling Stone” is playing live to a metronome backed by an electric grand piano keyboard patch? Sorry but get out of here with the “real Rolling Stone” nonsense



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-11-11 16:28 by TravelinMan.

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: TravelinMan ()
Date: November 11, 2024 16:24

Quote
Testify
Quote
GasLightStreet
In that exact perspective, it's no wonder the Taylor ear fans are so loud about what live era is better.

But you forget that the most important era of the Stones was not with Ronnie but not even with Taylor but it was the one with Brian J. and it was the most important era of the Stones!
The Taylor period was important, but they were no longer them! Taylor had distorted them, Ronnie brought them closer to their nature. The Taylor period, especially live, had made them become one of the many bands of the 70s.

Right, because when I think of the Stones, I think of Disco lol

You don’t get to define The Rolling Stones

Re: Rocks off live
Posted by: TravelinMan ()
Date: November 11, 2024 16:27

Quote
MadMax
Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
RisingStone
Quote
More Hot Rocks
Quote
RisingStone
Monkey Man and Rocks Off have something in common in that they both feature the fascinating middle eight that doesn’t translate well live onstage, that dreamy flow on the former and the freak-out section on the latter.

However, after all is said and done, most of the times I find myself enjoying those songs that “do not work live” in committed fans’ opinion as how they are, e.g. 2000 Light Years From Home, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong etc. They are all welcome when I am there.

Monkey man does not have a middle eight

Considering that dreamy interlude does not carry lyrics, you are right.
What is it then, for want of a better word?

It's called a break.


Who ever said that a Middle 8 should include lyrics?!?!? confused smiley

You are correct, it doesn’t. It means eight bars of music which are distinct from other sections

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1678
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home