For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
LuxuryStones
I like everything they did together, both Taylor's and Keith's rhythm and lead. I think that's what you are referring to. '73 was different, but still the same players...so it doesn't really matter to me. The greatest R&R band in the world.
Quote
filstan
I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite. He and MT were fantastic together. It should be understood that this band should have always sounded different as they aged and some of the players changed. The dynamics change and so should the sound. The songs though were still translated the way the band wanted to present them. They could never go back to what once was. They had already done it. Sure I like the live sound from certain tours over others, but they always had that "Stones sound" other bands could never find. Thats is why as fans we still like going to hear them play live. I dare say that every concert they play the audio magic shows up in all its glory. Even if it is for just a few minutes within a certain song. It just comes togther. Regretably, as they have gotten older it is less frequent than it was back in those first 10 years.
Bottom line is the 73 tour was a rockin' deal. Those boys were on top of their game.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
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.
Quote
71Tele
What was (is?) so great about this band is that you can out on Keith: Vintage 69 or Keith: Vintage 73 depending on what mood you are in. He does completely different things on each tour. Both are great. Maybe if I had to choose I would take 69, because the switching back and forth with Taylor was so epic, but his rhythm thing in 73 was incredible. He never drove the band like that again.
Quote
DeluxtoneQuote
DandelionPowderman
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.
Now Look, DP.
In '73 they had a new album with which they were touring.
So 4-5 new songs were in the set.
No-one would or did complain that Bitch and BBJ were ommoiited.
Hardly any going in '73 would have known or cared what was 'being omitted'.
As per Logie's post and per my and others'experiences people were leaving Stones' gigs then in a stunned and dazed state of exhiliarated astonishment and disbelief.
That is why it so irrelevant and irreverent etc etc etc to complain 41 years later that Keith was not doing enough Berry-style soloing.
He was following his own muse and breaking his own barriers.
Hence why Europe '73 was so SPECIAL compared to STP '72 and 'Down Under' '73, (each of those also outstanding too ofcourse).
Quote
rob51
So then the best guitar player would never play at all?
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.
Quote
HEILOOBAAS
The 73 European leg has shows sounding like they were phoned in. I mean, the 3 Essen shows... can you really tell them apart? Copenhagen, Rotters, Berlin stand out. But the visual is what was happening. Mathijs told me they got rotten reviews at The Ahoy and the Cloggies complained it was too loud. TOO LOUD? THE ROLLING STONES? NAAAH...
Quote
HEILOOBAASQuote
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.
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
HEILOOBAASQuote
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.
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
Yes he does a solo, but Keith is running the show on Rocks Off
Quote
Tumblin_Dice_07Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
HEILOOBAASQuote
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.
ERIK, Rocks Off is a MT solo song. He plays solo during the bridge, although it's more a brass-oriented song than anything else.
Yes he does a solo, but Keith is running the show on Rocks Off
I wouldn't really even call it a "solo". It's more like a fill in my opinion.
Quote
HEILOOBAAS
Keith plays furious rhythm but Mick T.'s 'fill' kicks in the afterburners. For years I have struggled w/trying to define what it was in 1973 that set the Euro/UK tour apart from the 1972 STP tour. One word - UNINSPIRED. Out of all the 72 shows I've heard, the only one that truly sucks is Ft. Worth #1. For some strange reason Keith doesn't start playing right away, the tidal way excitement leaks out, Mick stands there muttering and the concert is lost. But that show is arguably better than any from the Fall 73 tour. Mick's vocals were pretty awful. I mean, I can't even listen to Angie except for Brussels #1.
Quote
filstan
I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite. He and MT were fantastic together. It should be understood that this band should have always sounded different as they aged and some of the players changed. The dynamics change and so should the sound. The songs though were still translated the way the band wanted to present them. They could never go back to what once was. They had already done it. Sure I like the live sound from certain tours over others, but they always had that "Stones sound" other bands could never find. Thats is why as fans we still like going to hear them play live. I dare say that every concert they play the audio magic shows up in all its glory. Even if it is for just a few minutes within a certain song. It just comes togther. Regretably, as they have gotten older it is less frequent than it was back in those first 10 years.
Bottom line is the 73 tour was a rockin' deal. Those boys were on top of their game.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<I believe it is ludicrous to suggest that Keith and the band were not in top form during the 1973 tour. The notion that Keith was in some sort of decline with his playing is sillly because the tapes suggest the exact opposite.>
I don't know why this was brought up again, but I think it's hard to tell whether Keith was in top form or not in 73, simply because he only played ultra-basic on that tour.
His showcases were dropped from the setlist, and Taylor increased his dominance of the band's sound.
In 1969, and even more in 1975, Keith would colour the RS sound in a different way than on the 73 tour. More phrasing in his rhythm work, more licks, more playing in standard tuning. Overall, he was more interesting to listen to, and whether he wants it or not, he is of major importance to the band's sound, imo.
Quote
DD
Hello.
For what it's worth, I reckon Perth 1973 (therefore, a show in between the '72 US tour and the '73 European tour) is the best live album I've ever heard by any band, full stop.
So, actually, all of you debating which of the two aforementioned tours was best are wrong. It was, of course, the Oz and NZ tour. Simple, really.
Declan