For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !
I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English
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.
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
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 .
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
Quote
DoxaQuote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !
I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English
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
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.Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DoxaQuote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !
I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English
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.
Quote
Taylor1
.Like Bill Wyman said in Cross Fire Hurricane, no one could touch us live in1972.
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
Quote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
I assumed he was referring to rock bands. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the Stones.
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.
Quote
More Hot RocksQuote
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
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.Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
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.
Quote
RisingStoneQuote
More Hot RocksQuote
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?
Quote
Taylor1I 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.Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DoxaQuote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !
I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English
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.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Taylor1I 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.Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
DoxaQuote
Spud
"hurryupism" love it !
I'm going to campaign to get that word in the Oxford English
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 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.
This is precisely why Taylor was never a real Rolling Stones!Quote
powerage78
Too often, the distracted Ronnie is a poor rhythm guitarist, and the songs lack power and structure... Taylor was focused and diligent.
Quote
GasLightStreet
In that exact perspective, it's no wonder the Taylor ear fans are so loud about what live era is better.
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 contributionsQuote
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.
Quote
Taylor1Nick 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.Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
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.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
RisingStoneQuote
More Hot RocksQuote
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.
Tou are rightQuote
MadMaxQuote
Taylor1Nick 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.Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
TravelinManQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
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.
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.
Wasn't it cyanide? No use in going to another show as nothing would EVER top that?
Quote
TestifyThis is precisely why Taylor was never a real Rolling Stones!Quote
powerage78
Too often, the distracted Ronnie is a poor rhythm guitarist, and the songs lack power and structure... Taylor was focused and diligent.
Quote
TestifyQuote
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.
Quote
MadMaxQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
RisingStoneQuote
More Hot RocksQuote
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?!?!?