Quote
Silver Dagger
Why de-construct it? With Mick Taylor back in tow we should be talking about re-constructing it. ><

BOOM!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones.

Taylor was too modest then, unfortunately not aware of it. I don't hear a decline during his tenure with the Stones.

Physical and mental decline, something he has brought up numerous times himself

It didn't affect his playing with the Stones back then, we have to give him that one.

I love the Rotterdam rehearsal from this tour , even with bad sound, imagine can you hear the music live?

Rehearsal- can you hear the mobile
Best sounding cd I have of this

CD 1:
1. Rocks Off [02:35]
2. 100 Years Ago [11:49]
3. Can You Hear The Music? [08:00]
4. Hide Your Love [10:59]
5. Angie [04:56]
6. Shine A Light [02:43]
7. Star Star [07:02]
8. Gimme Shelter [12:45]
9. Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker) [01:45]
9. 100 Years Ago [01:39]
10. Dancing With Mr.D [07:59]
11. Brown Sugar [01:49]
CD 2:
1. Star Star [14:08]
2. Can You Hear The Music? [04:25]
3. Star Star [07:30]
3. Dancing With Mr.D [00:30]
3. 100 Years Ago [00:27]
4. Angie [04:05]
5. Jumping Jack Flash [03:40]
5. Jam [06:20]
6. Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker) [06:29]
7. Happy [05:00]
7. Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker) [01:29]
8. Can You Hear The Music? [05:49]
9. Shine A Light [02:12]
10. 100 Years Ago

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones.

Taylor was too modest then, unfortunately not aware of it. I don't hear a decline during his tenure with the Stones.

Physical and mental decline, something he has brought up numerous times himself

It didn't affect his playing with the Stones back then, we have to give him that one.

Like I said, when a poster questioned how Taylor felt about the band and himself in 1974, I think Taylor was proud of what he did on IORR (judging by the interviews back then - and later).

Keith played brilliantly in 1978, but we might question his shape in that era. These things are not necessarily connected.

Quote
Chacal

Quote
Deluxtone
Regards Taylor - I've said before in '73 threads - it was at the time DE RIGEUR to have a 'hotshot' lead guitar to the fore. Think Focu and jans hammer for example. .

I assume you meant 'de rigueur' ? (= strictly obligatory, or required)

Also: Focu -> Focus ? Jans Hammer -> Jan Hammer ?

Yes Chacal, thanks. Too much haste 'Late at Night'

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones.

Taylor was too modest then, unfortunately not aware of it. I don't hear a decline during his tenure with the Stones.

Physical and mental decline, something he has brought up numerous times himself

It didn't affect his playing with the Stones back then, we have to give him that one.

Like I said, when a poster questioned how Taylor felt about the band and himself in 1974, I think Taylor was proud of what he did on IORR (judging by the interviews back then - and later).

Keith played brilliantly in 1978, but we might question his shape in that era. These things are not necessarily connected.

In '78 he was on the mend - but a shadow of his '69-'73 shape - and the band too.
Yes the band were more in gear and fired up than in '75'-76. But they would never recapture their '69-'73 form.

(I'm sure you'll disagree DP. But would you post examples from youtube of great Keith playing in '78 on a separate '78 thread).

So why did LOGIE leave???

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones.

Taylor was too modest then, unfortunately not aware of it. I don't hear a decline during his tenure with the Stones.

Physical and mental decline, something he has brought up numerous times himself

It didn't affect his playing with the Stones back then, we have to give him that one.

Like I said, when a poster questioned how Taylor felt about the band and himself in 1974, I think Taylor was proud of what he did on IORR (judging by the interviews back then - and later).

Keith played brilliantly in 1978, but we might question his shape in that era. These things are not necessarily connected.

In '78 he was on the mend - but a shadow of his '69-'73 shape - and the band too.
Yes the band were more in gear and fired up than in '75'-76. But they would never recapture their '69-'73 form.

(I'm sure you'll disagree DP. But would you post examples from youtube of great Keith playing in '78 on a separate '78 thread).

I don't need to post anything. All the fans have Some Girls Live In Texas, treasure Keith's playing there and regard it as the top of his game.

I bet Taylor thought Keith was in excellent shape in 1973/74.

Agree keith1978 was awesome

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Taylor also saw his own decline, as well as that of the producer, the engineers and lots of others associated with the Stones.

Taylor was too modest then, unfortunately not aware of it. I don't hear a decline during his tenure with the Stones.

Physical and mental decline, something he has brought up numerous times himself

It didn't affect his playing with the Stones back then, we have to give him that one.

Like I said, when a poster questioned how Taylor felt about the band and himself in 1974, I think Taylor was proud of what he did on IORR (judging by the interviews back then - and later).

Keith played brilliantly in 1978, but we might question his shape in that era. These things are not necessarily connected.

In '78 he was on the mend - but a shadow of his '69-'73 shape - and the band too.
Yes the band were more in gear and fired up than in '75'-76. But they would never recapture their '69-'73 form.

(I'm sure you'll disagree DP. But would you post examples from youtube of great Keith playing in '78 on a separate '78 thread).

I really think Keith was too much of a selfmade man to judge what his best days as a guitarist were, a matter of taste. I prefer his playing with Mick Taylor during the "golden era". Taylor and Richards got the best out of each other back then imo, be it '69, '70'71'72,'73 or '74. Even during the Stones' afterglow it shows that something "special" happens when Richards and Taylor share the stage. (Midnight Rambler CYHMN).

And Taylor and Wood aren't "self-made" men?

Sure they are. I was referring to Deluxtones' remark.

---> MT, 1973.

Wow, what kind of threads IORR used to have...

- Doxa

Real impressive

U could actually learn stuff about the band

Quote
Doxa
Wow, what kind of threads IORR used to have...

- Doxa

Some things will never change.

I still can't understand what "best" Keith got out of his playing in 1973 compared to his LMG-solo on Still Life or his playing on Down In The Hole or Bitch in Atlantic City - not to forget Hate It When You Leave from Boston or How I Wish from the Palladium. But maybe there is something I don't get with his open G-playing/strumming back then.

If so, it would really be a shame, because I have written songs and played around with the 5-stringer for 26 years...

Quote
Erik_Snow
I'm familiar to your thoughts, it's an interesting subject.
They threw away the acoustic Sweet Virginia on the European Tour, and also the songs Keith shined on...Bitch and Bye Bye Johnny. Rocks Off was not a Taylor-solo-song in 72...they threw away that one too.
There were only one song left, where Mick Taylor couldn't shine on...Star Star, as Keith did the solo. You'd expect them to come up with a different setlist, if they didn't like Taylor's soloing throughout the songs.
That's a bit odd...
Just making an "but-on-the-other-side"-post, here.

Deluxetone: You should read Erik's post (he's not exactly a "Woodist"), regarding what we were debating earlier.

This post was brilliant in 2006, and still is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-07-11 00:15 by DandelionPowderman.

DP,

We didn't get into a debate, ('73 vs. '78), nor would it be fruitful.
(Was once sent Handsome Girls. Wasn't much impressed). Erik's stuff generally is sterling.

I remember this thread from 2006.(I was a more regular presence at the time).
(When I added to it recently it I hadn't realised that it had been dug up from the past).

Infact bassplayer was a very regular presence too.

Sorry others, that's enouh of our personal asides.

get back on Thread please!!

what was a beautiful read is once again hijacked...

Total hijack

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I still can't understand what "best" Keith got out of his playing in 1973 compared to his LMG-solo on Still Life or his playing on Down In The Hole or Bitch in Atlantic City - not to forget Hate It When You Leave from Boston or How I Wish from the Palladium. But maybe there is something I don't get with his open G-playing/strumming back then.

If so, it would really be a shame, because I have written songs and played around with the 5-stringer for 26 years...

IMO there is no room for entire and absolute truth on iorr.org when it comes to the Rolling Stones' musical abilities, let alone asking for individual musical recognition to emphasize this, at least I don't... Like I said, it's a matter of taste. But then enjoying or debating 50 years of RS, that's epinephrine and fun. There is something in it for everyone..

Quote
Gooo
Total hijack

Is it? This was my post before some posters started picking on Keith:

"A lovely tour (judging from bootlegs) from a lovely era which they took as far as they could. In a way it ended with the 1976 tour.

Then, like so many times before, they evolved and brought in more current music in the mix. And Keith became more active on stage again, which is always a good thing for the Stones, imo.

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I still can't understand what "best" Keith got out of his playing in 1973 compared to his LMG-solo on Still Life or his playing on Down In The Hole or Bitch in Atlantic City - not to forget Hate It When You Leave from Boston or How I Wish from the Palladium. But maybe there is something I don't get with his open G-playing/strumming back then.

If so, it would really be a shame, because I have written songs and played around with the 5-stringer for 26 years...

IMO there is no room for entire and absolute truth on iorr.org when it comes to the Rolling Stones' musical abilities, let alone asking for individual musical recognition to emphasize this, at least I don't... Like I said, it's a matter of taste. But then enjoying or debating 50 years of RS, that's epinephrine and fun. There is something in it for everyone..

I agree, but at the same time one would be blind not to notice that lots of the numbers Keith was shining on were taken away for the 1973 tour.

That a certain kind of posters claim that Keith was better off and improved his contributions without Bye Bye Johnnie, Bitch and other Keith numbers is nothing but unfathomable - it's borderline provocative, imo.

But back to topic. Like I said before I was interrupted - a lovely tour.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LuxuryStones

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I still can't understand what "best" Keith got out of his playing in 1973 compared to his LMG-solo on Still Life or his playing on Down In The Hole or Bitch in Atlantic City - not to forget Hate It When You Leave from Boston or How I Wish from the Palladium. But maybe there is something I don't get with his open G-playing/strumming back then.

If so, it would really be a shame, because I have written songs and played around with the 5-stringer for 26 years...

IMO there is no room for entire and absolute truth on iorr.org when it comes to the Rolling Stones' musical abilities, let alone asking for individual musical recognition to emphasize this, at least I don't... Like I said, it's a matter of taste. But then enjoying or debating 50 years of RS, that's epinephrine and fun. There is something in it for everyone..

I agree, but at the same time one would be blind not to notice that lots of the numbers Keith was shining on were taken away for the 1973 tour.

That a certain kind of posters claim that Keith was better off and improved his contributions without Bye Bye Johnnie, Bitch and other Keith numbers is nothing but unfathomable - it's borderline provocative, imo.

But back to topic. Like I said before I was interrupted - a lovely tour.

Keith's Chuck Berry solos, his rhythm guitar, everything he did actually, was splendid during the '73 tour. I think he shone there, not the least cause of the incredible Ampeg sound on stage. In '73 the Rolling Stones were a band for self mutilating borderliners. I was there in Rotterdam'73, and left deaf as an adder.

There was only ONE Berry solo left for the 73 tour. Bitch and BBJ were omitted.

The open G-playing was sharper later on, imo. The Ampeg was gone in 77.

Yes I know. But I still think Keith was shining during the '73 Stones tour, the best rhythm player Taylor could ask for.

Quote
LuxuryStones
Yes I know. But I still think Keith was shining during the '73 Stones tour, the best rhythm player Taylor could ask for.

So THAT'S why he was shining

That's one of the reasons indeed, and one
of the reasons Taylor was shining.
What a couple they were.