Just a thought. I have been listening to all the 81 soundboards that are popular on the torrent thing right now. Then, I listen to some 82 boards from Italy and France. The Stones were tighter, more focused, and just plain better in 82. So then I check out 75. Good stuff in the US, but the 76 stuff I have from Europe is a better band. I must mention that the 75 and 76 stuff I have is poor quality soundwise. Then I got to thinking about 72 in the US vs 73 in Europe. Both excellent tours with great performances available in good sound, but the band was tighter, and at the same time more willing to loosen up and jam in Europe in 73. So I ask, is it that the Stones play better in Europe? Or is it just that by the time they finished in the states, they knew the songs so well that they couldn't play badly in Europe?

I don't agree to the 81/82 tour. I think they played much better in the US. Actually, the same goes for 75/76. Some shows were really tight in 76, for instance Frankfurt, Cologne and Paris. But there were lots of sloppy ones. Of course, there are some sloppy ones in 75 too, but the good shows in 75, were better than the good 76 shows. Also the setlist were more interesting in 75.

The main difference between the U.S. and European audiences is that in USA you only listen to the songs you want to hear and take your 'piss break' if there's a song you do not like.
In Europe you go to see an entire concert and except for the emergency case no one would leave´during the concert. If you do not like a song you hope that the next one will be better. Leaving a concert menas that it's so very bad that it is a clear protest behavior. (It happened during the Stones Tour of Europe 1976 at Kiel, Germany, because the sound was so horrible).

I always get the feeling that there better shows are in the US part of every tour.
Of course there are exceptions. Brussels, Perth and London from '73 are awesome but i always saw them as different tours. In '72 they're more of a rock 'n roll band and in '73 they are more polised.

Cheers,
Wuudy

I think the US gets the better shows, or at least they seem to get the better set lists (1975, 1981, 1989, 1994, 1997, 2002 and... may be 2005 also?)

If you got a couple of bootlegs from 75, and you're unlucky because you have bought Detroit or the L.A.-video-show, you would think it wasn't a good tour. But if you get a good one (Toronto, last N.Y. 1st or last L.A etc.) you'd know that they really smoked back then. And some of the best shows aren't even available on CD. 76 had some great performances, but they NEVER reached the heights of the killer-75-shows.
They also seem to try out more songs in U.S, that's true.
I find it's strange that the audience behaves different from those 2 continents. I've only been to one show in the U.S, but I've read it several places.

Messhead,
Do 82 soundboards from France really exist ?
can you give me the name of these ones ? thanks
J-P

Interesting topic. I think 1975 is better in many ways but they played Hot stuff in 1976, one of their best live moments ever. Worked well live. Happy is better in 1976, I think, or maybe now, I dunno, its the phazer I guess. The band looked cooler in 1975 but Mick was cool in 76 too. 1973 is tighter and rockier but they were cooler in 1972, more nerves there. Warmer in 1972, cooler in 1973. Keith seems more lost in 1973. 1982 was terrible and 1981 was great.

I think setlists are usaually 'better' (at least for my taste) in USA, but the audience are wilder and hotter in Europe. The atmosphere on the field is better in Europe because it is not seated. And I don't think that people love the Stones or the members of the Stones more in Europe, but you can't find the 5 minute-long standing ovation for Charlie in the Usa during band intro.

for 82 naples is a soudboard one........

One example is the VL tour. They were WAY better outside the US. But then again the B2B tour seemed best in the US and South America.

JumpingKentFlash

saltoftheearth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The main difference between the U.S. and European
> audiences is that in USA you only listen to the
> songs you want to hear and take your 'piss break'
> if there's a song you do not like.
> In Europe you go to see an entire concert and
> except for the emergency case no one would
> leave´during the concert. If you do not like a
> song you hope that the next one will be better.
> Leaving a concert menas that it's so very bad that
> it is a clear protest behavior.


Is that so? Wow. I may have to re-think whether to attend the Wembley shows if I can't take a piss during YGMR without pissing others off.....

When they start in America, they've been sitting on their asses for 2 years. When they've reached Europe, they've been playing for over a year so they're more "in shape".

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When they start in America, they've been sitting on their asses for 2 years.

No, they have been rehearsing for 6 weeks!

I think that the 1970 tour was better than the 1969 tour. For all other tours the US tours were much better unfortunately. US gigs always seemed to be fresher, rawer and more energetic. They seem to be more spontaneous.

Mathijs

I've attended only one show outside the USA (Wembly Arena Aug. '03) and enjoyed it much better than the two stateside shows that tour. I really think it comes down to how they're feeling on any given night as well as the concert-goer.

In reply to Stonefan, I have a disc from 6/14/82 at the Hippodrome in Paris, it's titled Demain le Soleil and is on RO tracker right now. I miss typed, however, it is not a board. The Naples is, France not. Sorry for the confusion (almost as detail oriented as a Zappa fan .

I appreciate all the feedback to my question. I guess maybe I prefer a tighter, smoother Stones. I was just noticing little differences. For example, in 81 they just bang out She's so Cold without much concern for playing it too fast. In 82, Keith actually plays the intro with a delay and the tempo is better. Then, on Hang Fire in 81, there is no attention paid at all to the "doo doo doo doo doo" part on the intro and other sections. In 82, they have a sax and sometimes Ronnie helping to cover that part. Just small observations, and for some reason I thought I'd ask what you all thought.

I got so many boots from the 03 Licks tour that were totally dreadful I just stopped collecting.

I think by the time they get to Eurpoe they are definitely tighter and take a few more risks with the set list. '95 is a good example of set lists, theater shows etc that just didn't happen on the US leg.

georgeV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think by the time they get to Eurpoe they are
> definitely tighter and take a few more risks with
> the set list. '95 is a good example of set lists,
> theater shows etc that just didn't happen on the
> US leg.

Not so sure, in '94 at my shows, in addition to the reworked NFA, we also got Rocks Off, Memory Motel, All Down The Line and Monkey Man, none of which get much airplay even in Los Angeles.

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've attended only one show outside the USA
> (Wembly Arena Aug. '03) and enjoyed it much better
> than the two stateside shows that tour.

best Stones show I've ever been at

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Edith Grove Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've attended only one show outside the USA
> > (Wembly Arena Aug. '03) and enjoyed it much
> better
> > than the two stateside shows that tour.
>
> best Stones show I've ever been at
>


I was great, wasn't it? Couldn't wipe the smile off my face for hours.

do people really think the difference between best and worst shows is all that much these days? my take is that the variance is small - the variables are more in the perception of the attendee. In decades passed I think there were more wild swings of high and low, possibly owing to substance abuse, etc....

In 82 the Stones were not tighter than in 81, but they played for my taste some songs much to fast, punk influence? I do not know.

I would say they play better and do more songs in the US (getting also more money, less borders and hazzle to travel perhaps). I always had the feeling in the last 20 years and it proved right when I saw them during 7 concerts along the West coast last year. Of course they have low days also in the states.
However real peaks have been also reached in Europe. Frankfurt 82 concert 1 and 2 was outstanding and did not find any equal spirit for years. Basel 1990 the Swiss freaked out for the first time and the rain stopped when Keith began his set. etc etc.
Though I make the same mistake as I did previously I think the Stones are not very confident in UK compare to other countries. My personal low was definetely the Astoria where I felt cheated. I had the feeling the only thing they wanna do in London is going back to family and kids and just to quickly the work the have to do, like working at an office. But hey, that my oppinion and does not have to be shared by anybody.

Munich Olympiastadion 1982 (first concert) which I attended was also great although there were only minor changes in the setlist during the entire tour. The second Munich concert seems to have been disturbed by rain if I remember right what friends told me - I wasn't there.
Back in 1982 the Stones were top of the list - remember, they had released Start me up as a massive hit - so nobody cared if they played the same songs every night. It was great to hear them play Let's spend the night together, Time is on my side - my personal highlight - , and Beast of Burden. Although for us they seemed to be growing old we were really thrilled that they came to Europe with a big tour. Old songs like Satisfaction which they had not played in years and which we never before had heard live were not regarded as warhorses. We were glad that we got those big hits.
In comparison, Munich 1990 like the entire tour was rather a theatre show with massive visual and sound effects. For the first time you had the impression of something being artifical, as everything was so perfect thjat there was no room for improvisation any more. Although 2,000 light years had a brilliant choreography the sound was improved by massive synthesized sounds (flute on Ruby Tuesday, sitar on Paint it, black). In 1982 the Stones were a live band, however big the stage was; in 1990 they were only actors in a perfect show. I have never again been to a concert since.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that the 1970 tour was better than the
> 1969 tour. For all other tours the US tours were
> much better unfortunately. US gigs always seemed
> to be fresher, rawer and more energetic. They seem
> to be more spontaneous.
>
> Mathijs


Isn't this what is referred to as "The Lost Tour"??? I have only heard of very few bootlegs from this tour. I got the Danish gig btw.


JumpingKentFlash

theres plenty of shows available, but very few in decent quality

If any tour since 1969 deserves the title "lost" its the 1971 british tour - theres hardly anything from that one in circulation and most of the setlists are elusive enough too