JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Brussels is a bit too perfect for my
> tastes. Doesn't even sound like the Stones some
> places.


That's an interesting point of view. I don't share it, but interesting. Is it because Keith and MickT reach summits never hears before and after. Does it have to do with Keith outstanding rough and so recognizable trademark sound so evidently at its peak on this album. Or is it because the harmony on GS is a jewelery on itself. Or is it that fabulous version of YCAGWYW with a brilliant Keith and 2 superb solos. Or is it because TD rocks as hell with ending notes by Keith so perfect. Or is it because Charlie and Bill demonstrate that their team is unique in R&R. Or is it because The Stones show up to the world that they once were the greatest rock and roll band at that time both on CD and Live

None of the above actually PHD. Brussels is still a very good boot It's because it lacks the special devilish Stones rock 'n roll crunch that can be heard on most '69-'70 recordings, some '75-'76 recordings, certainly on many '78 recordings, a few '81-'82 recordings, almost no '89-'90 recordings, MANY '94-'95 recordings, some handfuls of '97-'99 recordings, some '02-'03 recordings, a grea deal of the boots I've heard from this tour, not to mention what I witnessed in Horsens. Brussels just lacks it. Compare it to a boot like Sydney '73 (Rock 'n Roll Stew) and you'll know what I mean. Brussels is too perfect and there's many other boots I prefer instead. Casino Boogie '99, Rock 'n Roll Stew '73, Liver Than You'll Ever Be '69, Voodoo In Buenos Aires '95, Gorgeous Girls Redux '78 and Bridges To Argentina '98 to name but a few.

JumpingKentFlash

Brussels Affair, for YCAGWYW, Gimme Shelter, and the Goat's Head Soup material.

An official release would clinch it.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of the above actually PHD. Brussels is still
> a very good boot It's because it lacks the special
> devilish Stones rock 'n roll crunch that can be
> heard on most '69-'70 recordings, some '75-'76
> recordings, certainly on many '78 recordings, a
> few '81-'82 recordings, almost no '89-'90
> recordings, MANY '94-'95 recordings, some handfuls
> of '97-'99 recordings, some '02-'03 recordings, a
> grea deal of the boots I've heard from this tour,
> not to mention what I witnessed in Horsens.
> Brussels just lacks it. Compare it to a boot like
> Sydney '73 (Rock 'n Roll Stew) and you'll know
> what I mean. Brussels is too perfect and there's
> many other boots I prefer instead. Casino Boogie
> '99, Rock 'n Roll Stew '73, Liver Than You'll Ever
> Be '69, Voodoo In Buenos Aires '95, Gorgeous Girls
> Redux '78 and Bridges To Argentina '98 to name but
> a few.


Oh lord, I cannot believe you think that the Stones had more "devilish Stones rock 'n roll crunch" at any concert since 1990 compared to any gig in the 70s. Since 1990 they've been all smiles and clicktrack intros which is reflected exactly in lack of what you (rightfully) call "devilish Stones rock 'n roll crunch" IMO.

pmk251 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Musically "Ya-Ya's" is the band at its sexiest.
> The slower tempos are so controlled, delicious,
> confident. When the band struck those slower
> opening chords of JJF the audience gasped. The
> band required the audience to come to them, rather
> than playing to the audience. You have definitive
> version #1 of LIV (L&G version being #2). SFTD is
> one of the great live performanances in RnR
> history. The Brussels MR is brilliant, exciting,
> a guitar onslaught, but I prefer the "Ya-Ya's"
> stealthy version. The song selection on "Ya-Ya's"
> makes a statement, too. We are the worthy heirs
> of American RnR and blues.

Ya-Ya's essence in a nutshell - brilliant!

And so right about the slower tempos. It's not a matter of whipping up the horse, but of controlling it by tightening the reins.

----------------------------
"Music is the frozen tapioca in the ice chest of history."

"Shit!... No shit, awright!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-10-17 17:25 by Greg.

JKF,

Well, I certainly don't possess as many bootlegs as you. Never heard the 73'Sidney. "Liver than you'll ever be " is more an historical document than anything else. I even got it on vinyl a relative sent me from NY when it came out together with a an "MSG -69" with one famous picture of The Stones seating in HPark, of which tapes Ya-Ya is based !! Where is the devil in the 75 - 06 versions ? Can't see it . But it's fine. We don't look at this band the same way.

Brussels...just!

phd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JKF,
>
> Well, I certainly don't possess as many bootlegs
> as you. Never heard the 73'Sidney. "Liver than
> you'll ever be " is more an historical document
> than anything else. I even got it on vinyl a
> relative sent me from NY when it came out together
> with a an "MSG -69" with one famous picture of The
> Stones seating in HPark, of which tapes Ya-Ya is
> based !! Where is the devil in the 75 - 06
> versions ? Can't see it . But it's fine. We don't
> look at this band the same way.


I think you have as many CDs as I. It's not a whole lot actually. 100 CD boots and 65 DVDs is all I have. I think that's pretty normal. But listen to Albany from this tour and you know (Well..... Hopefully. LOL).

JumpingKentFlash

YA- YA's for shore...

Brussels.........get the new Halcyon records version.

Great rock and roll the way it should be played!

> None of the above actually PHD. Brussels is still
> a very good boot It's because it lacks the special
> devilish Stones rock 'n roll crunch that can be
> heard on most '69-'70 recordings, some '75-'76
> recordings, certainly on many '78 recordings, a
> few '81-'82 recordings, almost no '89-'90
> recordings, MANY '94-'95 recordings, some handfuls
> of '97-'99 recordings, some '02-'03 recordings, a
> grea deal of the boots I've heard from this tour,
> not to mention what I witnessed in Horsens.
> Brussels just lacks it. Compare it to a boot like
> Sydney '73 (Rock 'n Roll Stew) and you'll know
> what I mean. Brussels is too perfect and there's
> many other boots I prefer instead. Casino Boogie
> '99, Rock 'n Roll Stew '73, Liver Than You'll Ever
> Be '69, Voodoo In Buenos Aires '95, Gorgeous Girls
> Redux '78 and Bridges To Argentina '98 to name but
> a few.

........yeah I totally don't get where you're coming from. I mean it's a matter of opinion but to me, Brussels '73 is one of the most devilish, evil sounding Stones recordings......the demon band with the horn section in full cry......

100% correct Tumblin_Dice_07.

I say both. They have different strenghts. Brussels has the frenetic energy, and the combination Taylor - Richards at its peak. Ya-Ya's, on the other hand, is relaxed (with a lovely audience atmosphere), but it swings! I still think Brussels is the best, but e.g. JJF, Sympathy, LWM and LQ on Ya-Ya's is also rock as good as it gets.

Tumblin_Dice_07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ........yeah I totally don't get where you're
> coming from. I mean it's a matter of opinion but
> to me, Brussels '73 is one of the most devilish,
> evil sounding Stones recordings......the demon
> band with the horn section in full cry......


Hey. You're new here???
Anyway:
I don't think it sounds that devilish. There's not much crunch to it, but maybe that's the recording (I have the one from King Biscuit Flower Hour and also Ultimate Brussels Affair 2CD). There are other boots that are way more devilish I think. My prime example would be Rock 'n Roll Stew (Because it's from the same tour) compared to Brussels. Try and listen to them both. I think you'd agree that the band sound different on the two recordings. I prefer Rock 'n Roll Stew (Sydney '73 btw) to Brussels, and I guess you'd have it the other way around...

JumpingKentFlash

More devilish in 75-77 imo. 1973 is bit too much about being brilliant musicians and Mick tries so hard to be rock star and a bit ironiuc at the same time. I prefer the black, dark and a bit sloppy, yes, but elegant Stones of 1975-77/78. 1973 is great but i get tired of it faster. 1969 is a bit too jazzy at times but Altamont is one of their top five performances. Taylor hasnt yet got the ego and I prefer Keith. Although, Taylors solo at the end of Happy in 1972 and, the best one, the Winter tour boot (the high notes at the very end)... OMG that is so fab,

you cant compare those two... different era...

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

So hard to make a choice, but I have to go for Ya Ya's - fantastic show, and the sound is better than everything.

I think i'll go with :-

Get Your Brussels Affair Out!

i still dont 'get' ya yas. its a great stones live recording, but hardly holds a candle to something like the brussells afair. brussells is so raw live and loud with the boys playing in top form creating the sleeze. yayas sounds thin, and that the performances dont have the same amount of guts to them. sounds like the stones still honing how to play a rock show.

Brussels is great but Ya-yas is the best of all time...my favorite live disc ever.

Brussels gets my #1 especially since Oct 17 1973 i was 11 on that very day...sure it was recorded for me, but was never delivered...so to make up up for that i'll take Beacon tix for both nights....tks guys

compromise solution : Let your leeds lungs out!
?
ok, have to choose
the whole year I listen more Brussel than Get yer...
but choose Get yer
Except for Altamont 69 was a better times for the stones than 73,
more fresh!

" Let " has a powerful Dead Flowers rendition.

Brussels by a nose.